th boehringer ingelheim expert forum on farm animal well-being · 2020. 5. 18. · prof. marina von...

5th Boehringer Ingelheim Expert Forum on

Farm Animal well-beingJune 1st 2012, Lisbon (Portugal)

ABCD

The enclosed abstracts are the property of the individual authors. The comments and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and not necessarily reflect the position or beliefs of Boehringer Ingelheim or its employees. No abstract should be reproduced, transmitted or used for 3rd party purposes without the express written consent of the author.

ABCD

Welcome, We are very pleased to invite you to the 5th Boehringer Ingelheim Expert Forum on Farm Animal Well-Being.

This year, our forum leaves Spain to take place in Lisbon, capital city of Portugal and one of the oldest

cities in the world.

We, at Boehringer Ingelheim are much honored to organise this event for now the fifth time. The success

of this initiative demonstrates, if deemed necessary, that the veterinary profession is highly interested

by Farm Animal Well-Being –related topics. We must acknowledge that also high is the need for more

information and appropriate continuing professional education.

Hence, our Expert Forum on Farm Animal Well-Being has become a recognised discussion platform

which facilitates communication and transfer of knowledge between veterinarians and animal scientists,

as well as a highly commended place to mingle and socialise.

Among the main topics to be adressed this year, we have identified both voluntary and unvoluntary

culling of farm animals as being worth a discussion through the following questions:

How may welfare of farm animals at culling (slaughter or killing) be addressed?

Is culling of unproductive animals ethically justified?

When shall a farmer maintain and treat, or cull a cow?

The second part of the forum will be dedicated to pain associated with parturition:

How can we predict, identify, and assess health problems in the transition cow

through behavioural changes?

What are the practical methods to reduce pain associated with obstetrical procedures?

And finally, may NSAIDs be safely and effectively used to mitigate postoperative pain

and discomfort following non-elective caesarean section in cattle?

We are very much looking forward to welcoming you to Lisbon for a constructive and fruitful exchange.

Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health

Farm Animal well-being

Content

Is culling of farm animals a welfare issue?

Page 6 Culling of farm animals and welfare implications Dr. Suzanne Millman, Iowa State University, USA

Page 12 Is culling of unproductive animals ethically justified?Prof. Elsbeth Stassen, Wageningen Institute for Animal Sciences, The Netherlands

Page 18 Culling factors and culling management strategies on dairy farmsKaren Lancaster, DairyCo, UK

Page 24 Culling early or culling late – A trade off between farm profits and cow welfare?Fritha Langford, SAC, UK

5th Boehringer Ingelheim Expert Forum on


How painful is parturition to farm animals?

Page 32 Improving the welfare of the transition cowProf. Marina von Keyserlingk & Prof. Dan Weary, Animal Welfare Program, The University of British Columbia, Canada

Page 38 Practical methods to reduce pain associated with obstetrical procedures in cattleDr. Kenneth Joubert, South-Africa

0 Pain and discomfort associated with caesarean section in cattleAlice Barrier & Dr. Cathy Dwyer, Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, UK

Page 56 Use of NSAIDs around calvingProf. Todd Duffield, University of Guelph, ON, Canada

Dr. Suzanne Millman joined the faculty of the Iowa State University Col-

lege of Veterinary Medicine in 2008, as Associate Professor of Animal

Welfare in the Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine

and the Biomedical Sciences departments. Dr. Millman’s appointment

consists of 50 % research, 30 % teaching and 20 % professional practice

and outreach. Prior to coming to ISU, Millman was faculty at the Ontario

Veterinary College, where she continues to hold an adjunct appointment.

Millman’s research interests include animal welfare assessment, pain and

sickness behaviour, and practical solutions to address animal welfare in

production environments, particularly in relation to compromised cattle,

swine and poultry. Dr. Millman coordinates animal welfare instruction

within the DVM curriculum and serves as co-Chair for the AVMA Model

Animal Welfare Curriculum Working Group.

Millman serves as a resource to the livestock and poultry industries by

delivering educational materials that support development of evidence

based best practices in animal welfare throughout the food supply chain.

Millman serves as Section Editor (Farm Animals) for the Journal of Applied

Animal Welfare Science, and chairs the Iowa VMA Animal Welfare Com-

mittee and the Iowa Animal Cruelty Response Task Force.

Millman received her B.Sc. (Agr) and Ph.D. in applied ethology from the

Department of Animal & Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Canada.

Her thesis dissertation was An investigation into extreme aggressiveness of

broiler breeder males.

[email protected]

website: http://vetmed.iastate.edu/users/smillman

Dr. Suzanne T. Millman, B.Sc. (Agr), Ph.D.

6


Culling of farm animals and welfare implicationsSuzanne T. Millman

Associate Professor – Animal Welfare

Veterinary Diagnostic & Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

Figure 1.

Heifer X

recovering from

surgery at the

Lloyd Veterinary

Medical Center,

Iowa State

University.

(photograph provided by Dr. Jennifer Schleining)

Case study – Heifer XA 10 month-old beef heifer was admitted to the veterinary hospital at Iowa State University for a non-weight bearing injury, associated with a fall on the ice three days prior. Her vital parameters were within normal limits, and there was extensive soft tissue swelling at the level of her right femur as well as increased fluid at her right stifle joint. General anesthesia was performed to facilitate radiology, which confirmed a midshaft, complete, displaced spiral fracture of the femur. Surgical repair of the fracture was performed using special orthopedic plates, and the heifer recovered uneventfully from anesthesia. Antimicrobial and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory therapies were administered to prevent infection and to decrease pain and inflammation. Heifer X was hospitalized for the following two weeks and continued to receive pain medications. Blood work on Day +12 revealed no significant abnormalities, but abnormal position of the leg and excessive swelling were observed on Day +13. Radiographs indicated a fracture of femur just below the implanted plates. Poor prognosis was determined based on the nature of the fracture, and euthanasia was recommended. Captive bolt euthanasia was performed.

5th Boehringer Ingelheim Expert Forum on Farm Animal Well-Being 7

Animal welfare and the decision making tree for Heifer X

I could present the case of Heifer X as one of

disappointment or failure. However, in my

opinion this is an example of an effective deci-

sion making tree at work addressing the needs

and qualities of the heifer, her injury, her owner

and her veterinary team. To assess the implica-

tions for animal welfare in this decision, further

details are needed.

The most important criteria for assessing animal

welfare are the measures we can make directly

on the heifer. Heifer X was only 10 months of

age, and this impacts her potential for her to

recover from the injury and longevity. The nature

of her fracture was consistent with repair, and

importantly her temperament was conducive to

convalescence and intensive handling. Heifer X

had been trained and exhibited as a show calf;

she was extremely calm and easy to restrain and

handle. She appeared to enjoy human-animal

interactions, and was familiar with transporta-

tion, isolation and confinement. Hence, she

was able to cope with transport to and housing

within the veterinary hospital without complica-

tions of fear-related panic or aggression. Upon

presentation, her demeanor was bright, alert

and responsive, and she displayed an enthusi-

astic appetite and some weight bearing on the

affected limb.

The owners of Heifer X were knowledgeable

about cattle and attentive to detail. Hence, they

recognized the changes in the heifer’s behavior

immediately, made a reasonable diagnosis and

acted promptly to seek veterinary care. There

was a strong human-animal relationship, since

the calm temperament of Heifer X resulted in

her being shown as the project of the 9-year-

old grand-daughter at the prestigious Denver

Livestock Show. The grand-daughter and heifer

were reported to be “inseparable”. The heifer

had high genetic merit, and was insured, which

provided options for surgical intervention.

The Lloyd Veterinary Medical Center was in close

proximity to the home farm, and the veterinary

team included a surgeon with skills for fracture

repair. Clinical scoring criteria were determined

to monitor the heifer’s welfare and prognosis

prior to and following surgery. Postural and

behavior-related changes associated with

bovine pain were explained to and scored by the

veterinary student assigned to her case, and he

was highly motivated to provide supportive care.

Pain management was provided throughout her

convalescence, and at the point where prognosis

became poor, evidence relevant to humane end-

points was communicated to the owner. These

criteria included duration of refusal to rise from

recumbency, refusal to eat concentrate feed,

a “tucked up” posture, ear position, lethargy

(failure to attend to novel stimuli).

Once the decision for euthanasia was recom-

mended by the veterinary team and agreed upon

by the owner and by the insurance company, the

procedure was performed in her hospital pen

using captive bolt. The veterinarian performing

the euthanasia was skilled with the methods,

and his standard operating procedures included

immediate testing for insensibility and confirma-

tion of cardiac cessation.

Care of the compromised cow – ensuring welfare for involuntary culls

Farmers and veterinarians take care of food

producing animals with the aim to keep them

healthy, productive and to avoid suffering.

8


Although preventive care and identification

of risk factors are active areas of research,

there has been scant guidance on the design

and management of hospital pens. In a 2009

survey of dairy farmers in Iowa by our research

group, 79 % of farms had the possibility to

move sick or injured cows away from the main

group. Cow comfort, well-being and the ease

of observation of the individual cow were the

three most important reasons for moving a cow

into a hospital pen. However, fresh cows (46 %),

calving cows (35 %) and close-up cows (35 %)

were quite often held in the same enclosure as

the hospitalized animals. This mixing of ill and

injured cows with healthy prepartum cows is of

concern due to potential transmission of infec-

tion and due to differing behavioral needs of

the convalescent and parturitent cow. Further

research is needed for effective management of

the hospital pen in both dairy and beef herds.

In addition, precise terminology (“hospital

pens” versus “special needs pens” or “close

up pens”) is important for emphasizing the

different function and care needed for the

convalescent cow.

Culling, euthanasia and mortality on dairy farms

On a daily basis, farmers and veterinarians have

to make decisions to remove compromised ani-

mals from the farm that are ill or injured. These

animals may be sold, slaughtered, euthanized

on farm or in worst-case scenario, left to linger.

Some good decision making trees for determin-

ing animals fit for transport have been developed

for legislation and voluntary guidelines. Until

recently, it has been difficult to determine

from farm records the prevalence of different

categories of culling: animals that are sold, die

unassisted or are euthanized on farm. However,

following the BSE crisis some of this information

is being collected in Europe and North America,

systematically or in surveys (Table 1).

In the USDA NAHMS Dairy 2007 survey, 5.7 % of

cows died with predominant reasons including

lameness or injury (1.1 %), calving difficulties

(0.9 %), mastitis (0.9 %) and unknown reasons

(0.8 %). These values are similar to those

reported for Denmark, and appear to also show

an increasing trend (Thomsen & Sorensen,

2008). As of 2007 farmers must report if a

cow died unassisted or was euthanized for the

YEAR MORTALITY COUNTRY REFERENCE

1990 2 % Denmark Thomsen et al. 2004

1996 3.8 % USA USDA 2007b

2001 4.7 % Denmark Thomsen et al. 2004

2002 4.8 % USA USDA 2007b

20054.9 % Denmark Thomsen & Sorensen 2008

3.7 % France Roboisson et al. 2011

2006

3.8 % France Roboisson et al. 2011

5.7 % USA USDA 2007a

6.4 % USA (Colorado) McConnel et al. 2009

Table 1.

On-farm mortality

prevalence on

dairy farms.


Danish Dairy Database. In the 2008 Danish

database, 83.4 % of cows died unassisted and

16.6 % were euthanized (Thomsen et al. 2009),

versus 45 % and 55 % respectively previously

reported (Thomsen et al. 2004). A survey of

dairy cow mortality in Colorado, US indicated

that 55.3 % of the mortalities were unassisted,

and 44.7 % were euthanized (McConnel et al.

2009). These differences may reflect changes

in thresholds for euthanasia due to greater

oversight of slaughter of animals unfit for trans-

port. Similarly, following legislation forbidding

transport of non-ambulatory cattle in the EU

in 2007, a survey of four veterinary practices

in the Netherlands revealed 247 cases of

emergency killing and 742 cases of euthanasia

in 2007 versus 38 cases of emergency killing

and 414 cases of euthanasia in 2006 (Remijn &

Stassen, 2010).

As on-farm euthanasia becomes increasingly

common, bovine veterinarians have an impor-

tant role to play in ensuring that stockpeople

are trained in effective decision making trees for

determining humane endpoints and approved

methods of euthanasia. In a survey of 49 dairy

farms in the Netherlands, 80 % of farmers

recognized that a cow with a broken limb should

not be transported (Remijn & Stassen 2010),

whereas it was believed that transport was

suitable for cows that were lame (68 %), feverish

(61 %) or severely malnourished (79 %).

In a 2009 survey of dairy farmers in Iowa by our

research group, 58 % of respondents reported

that a cow was euthanized during the previous

year (unpublished data). Gunshot (81 %) and

lethal injection (17 %) were preferred methods.

Most often, the owner or staff carried out the

procedure (72 % and 16 %, respectively), and

41 % of the people performing euthanasia

were trained by a veterinarian versus 36 % who

learned on the farm, and 14 % did not receive

any training. Similarly, a survey of 113 dairy

farmers in the Midwest USA indicated that

gunshot was the preferred method for on-farm

euthanasia (85.7 %), followed by IV administra-

tion of euthanasia solution (8 %) and only one

farmer used a captive bolt device (Fulwinder et

al. 2008). Of particular concern is the finding

that farmers using lethal injection included

veterinarians in the procedures only 50 % of the

time, which would be required for barbiturate

overdose based on licensing of a controlled

drug. Disinfectants, such as chlorhexidine, were

used on some farms as a euthanasia solution –

a technique not approved by the AVMA and

likely to cause significant pain and distress.

Euthanasia training and certificates of comple-

tion for cattle, swine and poultry producers

(and veterinarians) are increasingly common

requests at Iowa State University veterinary col-

lege, perhaps due to evolving technologies and

public scrutiny, with educational programs and

resources available (ie: http://vetmed.iastate.

edu/HumaneEuthanasia). Euthanasia training

programs and support for livestock producers

are important not only to transfer knowledge

about approved methods, but to provide social

support for the psychosocial effects and worker-

related stress associated with euthanasia (Mort

et al. 2008).

Conclusions

In conclusion, the topics of culling, euthanasia

and mortality are increasingly important for the

dairy veterinarian and producer due to public

scrutiny, changing regulations and emerging

technologies. Stockperson support is needed,

especially for managing the hospital pen,

training in euthanasia and humane endpoints.

10


Research is needed for evidence based decisions

for management and design of hospital pens and

compromised cows. The bovine veterinarian has

a critical role for training and developing stand-

ard operating procedures for these production

scenarios.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Jennifer Schleining, DVM, MS,

DACVS LA and Jan Shearer, DVM, MS for provid-

ing case study details and thoughtful discussion

about Heifer X. I would also like to acknowledge

my collaborators for the Iowa dairy hospital

pen study: Katrine Fogsgaard and Mette Herskin

(University of Aarhus, Denmark), and Pat Gor-

den, Annette O’Connor and Leo Timms (Iowa

State University).

References

Fulwinder, W.K., Grandin, T., Rollin, B.E., Engle, T.E., Dalsted, N.L., Lamm, W.D. (2008) Survey of dairy management practices on one hundred thirteen North Central and Northeastern United States dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 91:1686 – 1692.

McConnel, C.S., Garry, F.B., Lombard, J.E., Kidd, J.A., Hill, A.E., Gould, D.H. (2009) A necropsy-based descriptive study of dairy cow deaths on a Colorado dairy. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1954 – 1962.

Mort, M., Convery, I., Baxter, J., Bailey, C. (2008) Animal disease and human trauma: the psychosocial implications of the 2001 UK Foot and Mouth Disease Disaster. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 11:133 – 148.

Raboisson, D., Cahuzac, E., Sans, P., Allaire, G. (2011) Herd-level and contextual factors influencing dairy cow mortality in France 2005 and 2006. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1790 – 1803.

Remijn, N., Stassen, E.N. (2010) Dealing with animals unsuit-able for transport on dairy farms in the Netherlands in relation to European transport legislation. Tijdschrift voor Dierge-neeskunde 135:96 – 99. [abstract]

Thomsen, P.T., Kjeldsen, A.M., Sorensen, J.T., Houe, H. (2004) Mortality (including euthanasia) among Danish dairy cows (1990-2001). Prev. Vet. Med. 62:19 – 33.

Thomsen, P.T., Sorensen, J.T. (2008) Euthanasia of Danish dairy cows evaluated in two questionnaire surveys. Acta Vet. Scand. 50:33 – 38.

Thomsen, P.T., Sorensen, J.T. (2009) Factors affecting the risk of euthanasia for cows in Danish dairy herds. Vet. Record 165:43 – 45.

USDA 2007a. Dairy 2007, Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the United States, 2007. USDA APHIS-VS, CEAH, Fort Collins, CO.

USDA 2007b. Dairy 2007, Part II: Changes in the U.S. Dairy Cattle Industry, 1991 – 2007. USDA APHIS-VS, Fort Collins, CO.


Elsbeth Stassen has studied veterinary medicine at Utrecht University. She

received her PhD with distinction at Utrecht University. In 1988 she became

associated professor at the department of Farm Animal Health of the Veteri-

nary Faculty, Utrecht University. Between 1996 and 2004 she held the chair

of professor in ‘human animal relationship’. In 2004 she has been appointed

as professor of ‘Animals and Society’ at Wageningen University, with spe-

cial focus on animal welfare and animal ethics. She is / has been supervisor

of a number of PhD students as in the NWO (Royal Dutch Organisation of

Scientific Research)-programmes ‘Limits to welfare and animal production’

and ‘Ethics and Policy’. She has been supervisor and promoter of a number of

PhD students in the field of udder health and claw-and-locomotion prob-

lems in dairy cattle. Projects such as ‘socio-economic aspects of locomotion

problems in dairy cattle’, ’piglet vitality’ and ‘animal welfare and public health:

a contradiction?’ are currently running.

Elsbeth Stassen is or has been member of several committees in the field of

animal health, animal welfare and human animal relations such as: chairper-

son of the ethical committee of the Royal Netherlands Veterinary Association

(1997 – 2011), chairperson of the ethics committee for experimental animal

use of the Institute for Animal Science and Health, chairperson of the ethics

committee of the European Association of Animal Production, member of the

scientific European Committee for the moratorium on BST (1999), member

of the think-tank (cie Wijffels) commissioned by the minister of Agriculture,

Nature Management and Food to advice about the future of the livestock pro-

duction sector in Dutch society after the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease

in the Netherlands in 2001, member of the welfare committee to supervise

during the control of the Avian Influenza outbreak (2003).

Elsbeth Stassen is teaching in the field of welfare and ethics of production,

recreational and companion animals both at Wageningen University and at

the Veterinary Faculty of Utrecht University.

Prof. Dr. Elsbeth Stassen

12


Is culling of unproductive animals ethically justified?

Abstract

Societal concern has emerged about the treat-

ment of animals in agricultural systems. In

current farming systems less productive and

unproductive healthy animals are being culled.

The killing of animals is often experienced as

being morally problematic. In this paper longevity

will be considered as a morally relevant aspect

in the discussion on killing of animals and as

a constitutive element of animal welfare. This

paper will also present results of a study on the

moral and social acceptability of killing animals.

In society it is considered unacceptable to

indiscriminately kill animals; there must always

be a specific reason to do so. ‘Respect for life’

is a guiding principle, which informs people’s

understandings and actions with regard to kill-

ing animals.

Introduction

The last centuries has seen a major change in

the mentality and attitude towards animals.

With this development societal concern has

emerged about the treatment of animals in agri-

cultural systems. The killing of animals is often

experienced as being morally problematic.

Why is there an increasing concern in society

about farm animals? For centuries more than

half of the Western population was engaged in

agriculture. However, nowadays more people

keep pets for company or backyard animals

for hobby than people that are involved in

agriculture. In Western societies most people

that keep pets view them as ‘members of the

family’. With this development views on animals

have changed in society. Another reason for

the increased concern are the changes in the

nature of keeping farm animals. In traditional

agriculture the system and treatment of the

animals fitted better with the behavioural needs

and interests of the animals, because farmers

were only able to keep a limited number of

animals. The individual animals represented a

considerable value to the farmer (Rollin, 2004).

In that system productivity was linked stronger

to the welfare of the animals. The demand for

cheap food of a constant quality increased con-

siderably last decades. Agriculture and science

responded by introducing new technologies that

made the development of industrial agriculture

possible, where the animals (in large herds)

were not able anymore to fulfil species-specific

needs. Farmers care about their animals, how-

ever, the care is mainly based on the extrinsic

value because most farmers in industrial

agriculture view their animals from a produc-

Prof. Dr. Elsbeth Stassen and Marielle R.N. Bruijnis

Animal and Society, Adaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences,

Wageningen University, the Netherlands


tive perspective. Farmers consider most other

people ignorant and misguided of the care that

they provide to their animals. Webster (2001)

states that, ‘as farm animals are merely seen as

resources there is a moral obligation to protect

them as they can’t speak for themselves’.

Although the vast majority of people in Europe

are in favour of the use of animals, they also

want the animals to live lives that respect their

natures and needs, and thus prevent them from

health and welfare problems. The question could

be raised why do people find it important to

respect the nature and the needs of an animal?

Research shows that a majority of people con-

sider humans to be superior to animals (Cohen

et al, 2012). However, nearly all people in society

hold the conviction that animals have value, that

people should do good to all animals and that

all animals have a right to life. These convictions

are based on a number of arguments, such as

animals are living beings, animals have the

ability to feel pain and emotions (sentience) and

people recognise the importance of animals for

the ecosystem (Cohen et al, 2012). So, on moral

grounds our concern for animals should be

determined by our respect for the intrinsic value

of animals rather than for its extrinsic value to

us. Dutch legislation on animals sets respect

for the intrinsic value of animals as the starting

principle for the use and treatment of animals.

Longevity as a welfare issue

In current farming systems, in order to run a

profitable farm, less productive and unproduc-

tive healthy animals are being culled. In this

paper we will explore whether longevity is a

morally relevant aspect in the discussion on kill-

ing of animals and if it is a constitutive element

of animal welfare. Concern about the lifespan

of farm animals have been put forward by the

Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC 2009), who

stated that an increase in lifespan is desirable

and possible. As outlined in the introduction,

the interests of farmers and animals diverge in

the conflict between the production of safe and

cheap food in sufficient quantities and the inter-

est of the animals to fulfil species-specific needs

(Rollin, 2004). Both biological and normative

assumptions define to what extent an animal

has interests, what these interests are and what

they imply for our dealings with animals. It is

often considered that death and longevity are

not a welfare issue (e.g. Webster 1995). From

this perspective, the moral intuition that killing

includes a moral wrong is not denied, but it is

argued that longevity is not a legitimate argu-

ment to substantiate this intuition. This view

argues that longevity is not relevant because

animals have no or an insufficient concept of

time. Consequently they lack the awareness of

their future and cannot weigh future live against

current live. In contrast, Bradley (2009) states:

“there is no good reason to discount the bad-

ness of death for an animal. If an animal would

have had a good life, then killing it is bad for it,

even if it cannot contemplate its future”. From

this view being alive is a precondition. Another

argument can be that animals have a preference

to survive. However, the desire to stay alive

needs to be balanced against other preferences

of the animal and of other sentient beings

involved. The preference of animals to stay alive

and live a longer life relates to empirical ques-

tions about consciousness and the capacity to

have a minimum idea of concepts such as life,

death and future. The possibility that animals

have some future orientation illustrates that

longevity can serve as an independent moral

argument in the culling debate, based on pre-

cautionary reasoning.

14


The relationship between humans and animals

has evolved from a functional relationship

towards one in which respect for the intrinsic

value of the animal as a being in its own rights

plays a significant role. With that the aspect

of natural living has become more and more

important in society. Leading to an integral

assessment of the quality of life of an animal and

taking into account species-specific develop-

ment. The interests of the animals get more

weight if one starts from the assumption that an

animal’s ability for species-specific development

should be taken seriously. Bruijnis et al. (2012)

conclude that longevity should be considered as

a constitutive element of animal welfare. This

conclusion meets the moral intuition that killing

animals raises moral questions. From this per-

spective there is a clear need to justify the killing

of animals because the lifespan of animals

receives more value than in the more restricted

views on welfare where longevity is not seen as

a constitutive element of animal welfare.

Societal and moral attitude towards killing animals

According to the present animal protection laws,

the killing of farm animals is not prohibited,

when this will occur without undue stress and

pain. However, in our society, the killing of

animals is often experienced as being morally

problematic. Many people believe that the killing

of animals should be justified.

The societal and moral acceptability of killing

animals has been studied (Rutgers et al, 2003).

Most reasons for killing healthy animals concern

human interests. Economic motives often form

the basis of decisions to send unproductive

livestock animals to the slaughterhouse. In this

paper we would like to present one example.

Respondents were confronted with a question

about a dairy cow, which had been yielding

insufficient milk for at least a month. Given that

keeping and feeding the animal was costing

rather than making him money, the farmer

chose to send the animal to slaughter. Respond-

ents were asked whether these economic

motives provided sufficient grounds to kill the

cow. A majority (60.6 %) answered affirmatively,

motivated by the fact that dairy cattle are kept

for production purposes: yielding milk and

ultimately meat also. As the animal entered

the food chain slaughter was not considered

senseless.

Animals tend to be ranked according to their

social value and the role that they play within

society. The study by Rutgers et al. (2003) has

revealed that it is unacceptable within our

society to indiscriminately kill animals; there

must always be a specific reason to do so. This

suggests the existence of a fundamental and

underlying shared understanding that one must

not kill animals gratuitously. Moreover, it also

suggests that ‘respect for life’ is a guiding principle,

which informs people’s understandings and

actions with regard to killing animals. Moreover,

the study has illustrated that the killing of ani-

mals is only socially acceptable when the killing

is carried out to achieve a clear and specific

accepted objective. In this regard, the study

demonstrated that it is, for example, socially

acceptable to end an animal’s suffering, to

slaughter livestock species in order to produce

meat and to terminate the life of an animal that

is deemed a threat to public health and safety.

Killing of animals becomes problematic when

the reason for so doing is considered inadequate

or unwarranted. For example, when the reason

given is considered groundless or when there are

satisfactory alternatives available, which render


the termination of animal life unnecessary;

for example, the slaughter and destruction of

healthy livestock animals as a measure to con-

trol the spread of animal disease in spite of the

availability of adequate vaccines. This suggests

that the basis of societal support is not only

determined by the specific species in question

and the human relationship to the animal, but

also the reason why the animal is being killed

and whether there are reasonable alternatives to

killing.

The study also revealed a number of other

sociologically relevant facts. The most signifi-

cant divergence in attitudes to killing animals

related specifically to gender, with women often

articulating greater objections to concrete situa-

tions and attaching more value to respect for life

arguments than men, who favoured more eco-

nomic and welfare arguments. This is consistent

with the findings of many studies of attitudes

towards animals, which also show that women

have more affinity and empathy for animals than

men. This research also suggests subtle changes

in cultural attitudes towards animals throughout

time. For example, older respondents tended to

display a higher degree of acceptance of killing

animals, revealing a more utilitarian and less

emotional attitude, than the younger ones. Such

disparities reflect broader social and psychologi-

cal changes in attitudes towards animals that

have taken place throughout the past century.

Concluding remarks

• The moral principle of ‘respect for life’, which

is understood as having respect for the natural

lifespan of the animal, provides an important

moral foundation for the common sense belief

that animals should not be killed, unless there

are reasonable grounds for doing so.

• Longevity is an animal welfare issue; the

animal’s future welfare is therefore important

as well.

• The slaughter of livestock due to lack of pro-

ductivity was found to be acceptable, but only

if the animal completes its ‘normal’ cycle of

production (i.e. slaughtered for meat).

• Healthy animals may be killed when welfare

problems are likely to occur.

• All other reasons for killing healthy animal,

such as psycho-social, social economic and

(public) health considerations, are only con-

sidered legitimate grounds for killing animals

in specific situations.

References

Bradley, B. (2009) Well-Being and death. Oxford University Press Inc., New York.

Bruijnis, M.R.N., Meijboom, F.L.B. and Stassen, E.N. (2012) Longevity as an animal welfare issue; applied to the case of foot disorders in dairy cattle. Journal of Agricultural and Environmen-tal Ethics, in press.

Cohen, N.E., Brom, F.W.A. and Stassen, E.N. (2012) Diversity of convictions about animals in Dutch society and the judgment on the culling of healthy animals in animal disease epidemics. A survey. Anthrozoos, in press.

FAWC, Farm Animal Welfare Council (2009) Opinion on the welfare of dairy cows. London.

Rollin, B.E. (2004) Annual meeting keynote address: Animal agriculture and emerging social ethics for animals. Journal of Animal Science 82, 955 – 964.

Rutgers, L.J.E., Swabe, J.M. and Stassen, E.N. (2003) Killing domestic animals; yes, if … or no, unless? Report NWO – Ethics & Policy, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Webster, A.J.F. (2001) Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free market, a review. The Veterinary Journal 161, 229 – 237.

Webster, A.J.F. (1995) Animal Welfare: a cool eye towards Eden. Blackwell Science Ltd. London.

16


Notes


Karen Lancaster qualified as a Veterinary Surgeon 12 years ago from Glas-

gow University. She has worked in farm animal practice throughout the

UK. Karen spent three years teaching at Cambridge Vet School and com-

pleted a Masters degree in livestock Health and Production whilst there.

On leaving practice 3 years ago Karen joined DairyCo (the UK dairy levy

board) as a technical extension officer providing technical information

and training to dairy farmers. In October 2011 Karen began a part time

PhD with the Royal Veterinary College investigating the impact of peripar-

turient measures of control on Johne’s Disease in British dairy herds.

Karen’s particular areas of interest are infectious disease, welfare, produc-

tion diseases and Cow Signals.

She spends much of her time visiting farms providing practical ways to

improve dairy cow welfare and productivity. Karen is a qualified Cow

Signals trainer.

Karen Lancaster

18


Culling factors and culling management strategies on dairy farms

Introduction

The cost of maintaining the herd (the cost of

rearing replacements or buying them in minus

the value of culls sold) is a major proportion of

dairy farm variable costs. Typically second only

to feed and forage. This is largely a “hidden”

cost unlike the feed bill or veterinary expenses.

You never write a cheque for ‘culling’ or ‘herd

replacement costs’ so this is often a cost which

is not calculated or is grossly underestimated.

The table below shows data collected by the

DairyCo benchmarking service MilkBench+ from

UK dairy farms.

MB+ data (as £ / cow)

to June 2011

MB+ data (ppl) to June 2011

Herd replacement cost

238 3.17

Feed & forage variable costs

622 8.02

Bedding 36 0.47

Vet & medicine 75 0.98

Al and other breeding costs

32 0.42

Milk recording 11 0.15

Consumables & dairy sundries

63 0.85

Total 839 14.06

Culling rate is influenced by many factors which

must all be understood and managed to ensure

both profitability and good animal welfare.

The quote below from the Farm Animal Welfare

Council (FAWC) illustrates this complexity:

‘Lifespan per se is not necessarily an accurate

indicator of good welfare or of a cow having had

a good quality of life. A long life often implies

that a cow has experienced a reasonable quality

of life. A short life, terminated prematurely, sug-

gests that there is likely to have been a previous

welfare problem, such as endemic or metabolic

disease or injury. Voluntary culling does not

normally imply poor or good welfare but the

ratio of the two culling rates (voluntary: involun-

tary) reflects the quality of life of animals in the

herd, independently of lifespan. It could be used

as a key welfare indicator on dairy farms.’ Farm

Animal Welfare Council 2009

The following quote is from an online farmers

forum.

‘I’ve a very good dairy cow 4 / 5 calver in calve

only 2.5 months, nearly dry. would you cull or

keep her. she’s worth about £550 culled but

in 6 + months she’ll be a really nice cow with a

50 / 50 chance of having a heifer.’

Karen Lancaster

DairyCo, UK

Milkbench+ database containing datasets with year ends between December 2010 and June 2011, 379 datasets (Milkbench+ uses the average market value for the farm replacement type, thus allowing comparison of flying herds against herds with homebred replacements)


The opinions that were offered covered every

option from ‘get rid of her now, she’ll only have

a bull calf, mastitis, metabolic disease etc’ to

‘keep her, she’s already paid her way and she

won’t cost you much to keep until she calves’.

This is an example of the day to day decisions

facing farmers regarding culling.

The UK Situation

In the UK a 2010 study estimated the culling rate

to be 25 %, so on average a dairy cow in the UK

national herd completes less than 4 lactations.

However, there is significant within herd and be-

tween herd variations from 11.5 % to over 35 %.

The table below shows the level of culling in the

UK and the breakdown of reasons for the culls

using the example of a 160 cow dairy herd.

% of all cows leaving herd

Number of animals leaving herd*

Infertility / failure to conceive

26.4 11

Mastitis / udder health

15.4 6

Lameness / legs and feet

10.4 4

Other (including death)

41 16

Yield 2.7 1

Age 4.1 2

Total 100 40

It must always be remembered that lower is not

always better and a balance must be struck be-

tween keeping the culling rate down whilst not

maintaining unproductive or unhealthy cows.

The average age at first calving in the UK is

28 months, with a range from 22 months

through to over 40 months. This costs on aver-

age £1280 (range £1250 at 22 months - £1528 at

30 months).

The average cost of replacements is currently

around 3.2 pence per litre (ppl) in the UK. The

target figure should be below 2.6 ppl with a

financial gain of around £90 /cow in extra gross

margin for achieving this. This is equivalent to

£ 14,400 per annum for a 160 cow herd.

The situation is complicated in large parts of the

UK by the impact of Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB)

necessitating the premature removal of large

numbers of otherwise productive cows.

Culling Rate

Culling is often split into two categories volun-

tary and involuntary. Voluntary culling is defined

as the removal of animals from the herd for

production related reasons. An animal will be

selected for removal to be replaced by one of

higher production potential.

Herd replacement cost (ppl) at different yield levels and replacement rates, assuming a £ 730 net replacement cost.

*For a 160 cow herd with a 25 % culling rate. Figures taken from Kingshay report ‘Reasons for cows leaving the herd’.

20


Net

rep

lace

men

t ra

te (p

pl)

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

6.500 7.500 8.500

Yield (litres)

32 % replacement rate25 % replacement rate

18 % replacement rate

Involuntary (or forced) culling is defined as the

removal of animals on the basis of health or

fertility problems. This does not include casual-

ties or sudden deaths. The following table gives

further detail on these categories.

Voluntary Involuntary

Low yield Infectious disease

Confirmation Lameness

TemperamentNon-bulling / repeat

breeder

Age Not in calf

Out of calving pattern Metabolic disorder

Slow milker Udder disease

Herd reduction Calving problems

Poor milk quality

In an ideal world a cow would calve for the

first time at 22 – 24 months, well grown and

healthy. Calve every year for at least 6 years,

have no mastitis or lameness and produce a

good yield of quality milk. Some culling would

be necessary as an aged herd would be more

prone to disease, and milk yield would begin to

decline.

This culling would be for age and age related

disease, also to remove some younger animals

which fail to reach their milking potential and

some which fail to get in calf. However, most of

this culling would be the voluntary selection

of unprofitable cows, with only the barren

cows being involuntary or forced culls.

In reality very few animals are culled for low

yields or old age and most fall into the invol-

untary category and are culled for fertility or

health reasons. This leaves farmers with little

opportunity to cull for production reasons and

so unprofitable animals are retained in the

herd.

Age at calving

2 years 2 years 4 months (average)

3 years

Net replacement cost* 680 730 977

Milk Yield Level 6500 7500 8500 6500 7500 8500 6500 7500 8500

Replacement rate per year

-Low 18 % £ / cow / year 122 131 176

-Pence per litre sold 1.9 1.6 1.4 2.0 1.7 1.5 2.7 2.3 2.1

-Average 25 % £ / cow / year 170 183 244


-High 25 % £ / cow / year 218 234 313


*cost to rear a heifer, less a cull cow at £ 550 DairyCo Managing Herd Replacements


Replacements

In order for a farmer to cull cows from his herd,

he must have animals which can come in and

replace them. This is achieved through either

the breeding of replacement heifers or the pur-

chase of heifers or cows.

The ability to successfully rear heifers to a size

at which they can calve down for the first time

at 22 – 24 months is pivotal to a profitable dairy

farming enterprise.

Rearing a dairy heifer to the appropriate size

and weight to calve for the first time is expen-

sive and time consuming especially when we

consider that she will not begin to make us a

profit until well into her second lactation.

This cost is compounded by the fact that heifer

wastage is a big problem on many UK dairy

farms. 15 % of heifers fail to reach their first

lactation and over 20 % of those heifers which

do calve down successfully for the first time will

be lost from the herd before they reach their

second lactation. This is not only a huge finan-

cial drain but also a serious welfare problem.

Timing Mean Hard Range

Neonatal 24 h – 1 month 3.4 % 0 – 12 %

Calf 1 – 6 months 3.2 % 0 – 29 %

Juvenile 6 – 15 months 3.5 % 0 – 21 %

Conclusions

Culling rates in the UK are very variable and are

largely made up of involuntary or forced culls,

leaving little room for the voluntary removal of

poorly productive animals from the herd.

Neonatal and Calf Mortality (from Brickell et al. (2009) Animal. 3: 1175 – 1182). Data from 509 heifers from 19 farms.

Figure.

Lifetime Performance

of a Dairy Cow

22


1st lactation 2nd lactation 3rd lactation

Conceive as heifer

Calve Calve

Calve

Birth

cost payback

profit

1st pregnancy 2nd pregnancy 3rd pregnancy

Breakeven point

0 1 2 3 4 5

0

gain

loss

Years of life

A high herd replacement rate is a costly prob-

lem in terms of both finance and animal welfare

which is often not recognised on many farms.

It will take a many stranded management plan

to deal with this problem and it can take several

years to get on top of. Never has the old adage ‘if

you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it’ been

more apt.

The main strategies for reducing herd replace-

ment rates are:

• An emphasis on herd health to reduce the

number of involuntary/forced culls through

disease and infertility.

• Decrease the age at first calving to the opti-

mum of 22-24 months by improving heifer

rearing and producing well grown, healthy

heifers.

By reducing the number of involuntary culls this

will allow more voluntary culls to be chosen

improving the quality of the herd and also the

monetary value of the culls sent.

When culling rates go down this reduces the

number of replacements needed and with a

lower age at first calving the number of heifers

which need to be kept will be further reduced.

This gives additional opportunities to either sell

surplus heifers, breed more cows to beef bulls

or reduce the amount of space used for heifer

rearing.

With many dairy farmers struggling to make ends

meet and a growing consumer awareness of ani-

mal welfare, improving dairy replacement rates

has to be a priority for the UK dairy industry.

References

Farm Animal Welfare Council. Opinion on Dairy Cow Welfare. October 2009

Orpin, P.G., Esslemont, R.J., Culling and Wastage in Dairy Herds: An Update on Incidence and Economic Impact in Dairy Herds in the UK. Cattle Practice Vol 18 Part 3.

DairyCo. Managing Herd Replacements. March 2012.

University of Reading. DAISY report Chapter 1. http://www.reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/aa/DAISY/DAISY1/REPORT4/chapter1/chapter1.htm

Kadarmideen, H.N, Conington, J., Coffey, M., Brotherstone, S., Simm,G., Value of Health and Fertility Traits in UK Selection Index for Dairy Cows. Proceedings of Recording and Evaluation of Fertil-ity Traits in UK Dairy Cattle. Nov 2001.

Bonneville-Hébert, A., Bouchard, E., Du Tremblay, D., Réjean Lefebvre, D., Effect of reproductive disorders and parity on repeat breeder status and culling of dairy cows in Quebec. Can J Vet Res. V.75 (2); April 2012.

Watts, B. Kite Consulting. Health and Culling Monitor Annual Report 2009.

Bascom, S.S., Young, A.J.; A summary of the reasons why farmers cull cows. JDS V.81 (8); 1998

Brickell & Wathes (2011) J Dairy Sci 94:1831 – 8

Brickell et al. (2009) Animal. 3: 1175 – 1182

Lame cow.


I am a post-doctoral researcher in animal welfare science at the Scottish

Agricultural College (SAC) and have mainly been working in the area of

dairy cow behaviour and welfare. I have worked on several large-scale

projects on both commercial dairy farms and research units. I have run

a project to specifically address the potential social behaviour issues

associated with continuous housing of dairy cows. I recently carried out

stochastic modelling and written a report for Dairy Co on the issues sur-

rounding the culling of dairy cattle.

I am passionate about promoting animal welfare education. I lead the

education section of the EU-funded project Animal Welfare Indicators

(AWIN) developing ‘Learning Objects’ that take high-quality research from

the AWIN project and other areas of animal welfare science and turn them

into easily accessed educational material for many audience types. I have

been involved with the University of Edinburgh MSc in Applied Animal

Behaviour and Animal Welfare for many years and have been Module

co-leader for Farm and Lab Animal Welfare (she does the farm half) since

2007. I also teach undergraduate causes at SAC making full use of virtual

learning environments and video conference to engage students in col-

lege sites across Scotland. I also teach veterinary students within the

University of Edinburgh and disadvantaged school-leavers in the Scottish

schools LEAP scheme. I have recently taken on the challenge of starting

up and running a new Masters course on International Animal Welfare,

Ethics and Law entirely delivered using online methods.

Fritha Langford

24


Culling early or culling late – A trade off between farm profits and cow welfare?

Introduction

Dairy cows are culled at the end of their

productive life, if there is an untreatable health

or welfare problem, or if the cow is unable to

become pregnant during lactation. The overall

level of culling varies widely from farm to farm.

Moreover, the rates at which cows are culled

‘voluntarily’ (i.e. the farmer makes the choice

to cull the cow for poor yield, age or confirma-

tion) or ‘involuntarily’ (i.e. all disease, infertility,

accident and death culls) vary even more widely

between farms. When an animal is culled during

her productive life, what the cause of culling

is and whether or not she can be a ‘sale cull’

(i.e. has not died or been euthanized on farm)

affects the financial cost of culling the cow for

the farmer. These same factors can affect the

quantity and quality of life experienced by the

cow and her welfare prior to culling. However,

the ‘types’ of culls that are most expensive for a

farm’s finances are not necessarily the same as

those that have the highest potential for poor

welfare and this creates a potential trade-off

between the financial outcomes and the avoid-

ance of suffering.

To gain an understanding of the long-term

effects of improving welfare on dairy farm

finances a dynamic programming model was

used to investigate the relationship between

the causes of culling and the consequences

of the cull, in terms of economics and health

outcomes.

Culling dairy cows: reasons and rates

There are two main reasons why culling occurs

(Fetrow et al. 2006). Animals that the farmer

chooses to cull for his/her own reasons are culled

‘voluntarily’ (Voluntary culling: VC). The reasons

for a VC include low yield (when a heifer of

higher potential is available), poor confirmation

(the cow is not wanted for breeding) and age

(yield drops with age and there is an increase

in the probability of disease). VCs are usually

sold for slaughter into the human food chain.

‘Involuntary culling’ (IC) is where a farmer must

dispose of a cow before he / she would otherwise

choose to because of injury, poor health or

infertility in the cow. IC cows may be milked

partway or throughout the lactation and sold

direct to slaughter, IC also includes those cows

that die on-farm due to accident, injury or are

euthanized.

Total culling rates include both VC and IC. Recent

studies have estimated the UK total culling rate

Fritha Langford

SAC, Animal and Veterinary Sciences, UK


to be 22 – 25 % per year (Bell et al 2010; Orpin

& Esslemont 2010; Whitaker et al 2000). This

is lower than the USA rate and comparable to

other countries in the EU. The percentage of total

culling which is classified as VC is often below

10% (8.8 % Bell et al. 2010; 2.9 % Orpin & Ess-

lemont 2010; ~3 % Brickell & Wathes 2011; 5.7 %

Whitaker et al. 2000). Therefore the majority of

culling is unexpected or unplanned (and so is IC)

and in order to maintain herd size the farmer is

less able to make choices to improve his or her

herd. It may also lead to cows that would have

been culled for health issues remaining on farm

as long as they get pregnant. The most common

reasons for IC are ‘infertility’ (Beaudeau et al.

1993; Bascom & Young 1998) followed by masti-

tis (Bar et al. 2008), lameness (Booth et al. 2004)

and uterine infection (Bell & Roberts 2007).

How the financial costs of culling differ between ‘types’ of cull

As milk yield tends to drop after the fifth parity

and the likelihood of disease (such as Johne’s)

increases with age, it becomes economically

attractive to ‘voluntarily’ cull cows after the

fifth parity (Stott, 1994). Cows that have five

parities are extremely likely to have made

more money than they cost to rear and feed.

Of course, most cows do not survive to their

fifth parity due to disease or infertility. Orpin

and Esslemont (2010) calculated losses for the

different IC types and found that farms with

the same culling rate may vary considerably

in costs of culling, as the reason or timing of

culling explains the majority of the variation in

cost.

A cow that is culled at the start of her first

lactation will have cost the farmer more money

to raise than she has made in milk. When the

cow will start to make a positive financial

contribution to the farm will depend on the

number of parities, the milk yield of the cow,

the point within a lactation that she is culled

and the veterinary cost of treatments. Added

to this, the farmer may make some money

through a live sale to slaughter, or a loss if the

cow is culled on farm and the carcass has to be

disposed of (figure 1).

Figure 1.

Financial costs of

different types of

culling.

26


INCREASING COST OF CULLING

Live-sale for infertility 4th parity cowEnd of lactationGood conditionGrade 2 carcass

Live-sale for infertility 4th parity cowEnd of lactationGood conditionGrade 3 – 4 carcass

Live-sale for infertility 3rd lactation cowMid lactationOK conditionGrade 3 carcass

On-farm cull 2nd parity cowEarly lactation

The effect of the ‘type’ of cull on the welfare of the cow

The welfare of the cow is affected by different

aspects of the factors leading to culling than the

financial outcomes. There is a potential for con-

flict in this trade-off between farm profits and

cow welfare. What if we were to look at culling

decisions from a cow’s point of view? As a cow

never has this choice, perhaps we should ask the

alternative question of when would the farmer

cull the cow if he/she were interested in maxim-

ising the cows’ welfare? A cull early in lactation,

especially for a young animal is the most expen-

sive financially for the farmer, but might this

type of cull be preferable to a cow then some of

the other culling scenarios common on farm?

A cow is only culled on-farm under extreme

circumstances, e.g. severe mastitis that does

not respond well to treatment. Cows that need

to be culled on-farm usually receive prompt

veterinary treatment, and the euthanasia itself

would be humane (and less stressful than going

to market). Notwithstanding the cows’ potential,

especially if she is only in her first or second

parity, to have a good life in the future if it were

able to ‘pull through’ from such a poor welfare

incident (see Yeates 2010), it is possible that

culling at this point would be preferable to other

prolonged conditions leading to culling.

Many dairy cows that go to market at the end of

lactation are in a poor body condition and this

can be associated with chronic lameness and

other conditions which may have been inad-

equately treated (Machado et al. 2010). These

cows are often nominally culled for ‘infertility’

as the farmer is unable to get the cow pregnant

(Dobson et al. 2008). From the cows’ perspec-

tive, the pain of lameness and the prolonged

length of time the condition occurs could be

worse than the on-farm cull scenario presented

above. We could illustrate this in a similar

fashion to the financial outcomes as shown in

figure 2.

Modelling long-term welfare improvement effects on culling and farm finances

A model was devised to investigate the effects

of small husbandry modifications to improve

health, welfare and fertility on financial out-

Figure 2.

Welfare costs of

different types of

culling.


INCREASING WELFARE COST OF CULLING?

Live-sale for infertility 4th parity cowEnd of lactationGood conditionMinor acute welfare issue leading to embryo loss?

On-farm cull 2nd parity cowEarly lactationSevere welfare compromise but prompt euthanasia?

Live-sale for mastitis 3rd parity cowMid lactationOK conditionSome veterinary treatment received?

Live-sale for ‘infertility‘ 4th parity cowEnd of lactationPoor conditionUntreated lameness?

comes over the long-term. The basis for the

long-term model was a computer based ‘typical

herd’. The ‘Dynamic Program’ (DP – Kennedy,

1986) concerned used recent data from

research and markets to create the ‘typical

herd’. In order to apply to as many farmers as

possible a ‘typical herd’ for two differing but

not extreme systems, a high input and a low

input system was produced. Then, by using the

likely economic benefit to the farm of culling an

animal, the DP calculated the optimum culling

strategies under pre-determined scenarios.

These scenarios were low rates of infertility,

low rates of mastitis and low rates of lameness

and average scenarios for each trait.

The scenarios changed the inputs to the model,

reflecting how the condition alters every area of

the herd. The DP model was run to obtain the

highest economic output from the herd while

applying these different criteria, to study how

farmers should optimise their cow culling under

the different disease and infertility scenarios

and their systems.

Reducing the herds’ infertility and disease rates

from the baseline to the ‘low’ level increased

the milk yield in both systems (Figure 3),

especially reducing mastitis levels. Reducing

the herds’ infertility rates from the baseline to

the ‘low’ level increased the annuity (average

annualised net return from investment in dairy

farming in £/cow/year) by £ 18 in the low input

system (from £196 / cow / year) and £ 48 in the

high input system (from £ 549 / cow / year). The

average age of the herd (i.e. parities) increased

by 0.1 and 0.2 for the low (from 3.2) and high

input systems (from 2.9) respectively. Both

mastitis and lameness had an even greater

effect on the annuity predicted, with lowering

mastitis levels increasing the annuity by £ 51

(low input) and £ 90 (high input) and lowering

lameness levels increasing the annuity by £ 57

(low input) and £ 87 (high input) (Figure 4).

These figures take additional costs (veterinary

treatments and preventative measures) into

account. These increases in annuity were

mainly achieved by the increase in milk yield

for the mastitis scenario and a combination of

Figure 3.

Effect of improving

disease and infertility

over the long-term

(20 years) on milk

yield in two different

dairy farm systems.

Figure 4.

Effect of improving

disease and infertility

over the long-term

(20 years) on annui-

ties (£/cow/year) in

two different dairy

farm systems.

28


140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Yiel

d in

crea

se fr

om b

asel

ine

(litre

s / co

w /

lact

atio

n)

Infertility Mastitis Lameness

High input system Low input system

Scenario (improvement from baseline levels to ‘low’ level)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Annu

ity in

crea

se fr

om b

asel

ine

(litre

s / co

w /

year

)

Infertility Mastitis Lameness

High input system Low input system

Scenario (improvement from baseline levels to ‘low’ level)

increased yield and a reduction of cows culled

on farm for the lameness scenario. This shows

the effect that reducing disease can have on

a farm’s cash flow, accounting for up to 30 %

improvement in annuity from one cause alone

(lameness in low input systems). Although

these effects will not be additive, due to inter-

actions between diseases / conditions, efforts

to improve performance across the board from

the typical baseline used here to current good

performance will provide even more financial

benefit than these single issue results.

Conclusion

We should conclude overall that from the finan-

cial position, it is best to avoid on-farm culls

and from the welfare position it is best to avoid

the chronic suffering potential of the low-value

end of lactation ‘infertility and other causes’

cull. Fortunately, the model results show that

with added investment and care to reduce the

three main causes of culling, farmers will end

up in the long-term reducing both of these

culling types especially for cows in their first

few parities. Improving welfare of lactating

dairy cows by reducing mastitis, lameness and

infertility increases: the mean longevity of the

herd; the choices that the farmer can make

in terms of herd improvement by increasing

VC potential; the milk yield from the cows by

reducing losses - directly due to disease and

indirectly due to culling during lactation; and

also the annuities for each cow (£ / cow / year)

mainly by increasing milk yield and reducing

costly on-farm culls. This is undoubtedly a win-

win situation for both farmer and cow.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by Dairy Co. Thanks go

to all the farmers involved and their assistance

in gathering useful data. The author is grateful

to both Holstein UK (CIS) and NMR for their

kind permission to access the databases to

update the DP Model. Many thanks also go to

Alistair Stott, Bouda Vosough Ahmadi, Jimmy

Goldie, Colin Mason, Cath Milne, Eileen Wall,

Hugh McClymont and Marie Haskell for their

help with areas of the data gathering and

discussion of the outcomes, Colin Morgan

for running all the Feedbyte simulations and

Tomasz Krzyzelewski for extracting yield data

from the databases. More details can be found

in the Dairy Co report (Langford et al, 2011).


References Bar, D., Gröhn, YT., Bennet, G., González, RN., Hertl, JA., Schulte, HF., Tauer, LW., Welcome, FL., and Schukken, YH. (2008) Effects of repeated episodes of generic clinical mastitis on mortality and culling in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 2196 – 2204. Bascom, S.S. and Young, AJ. (1998) A summary of the reasons why farmers cull cows. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 2299 – 2305. Beaudeau, F., Henken, A., Fourichon, C., Frankena, K. and Seegers, H. (1993) Associations between health disorders and culling of dairy cows: a review. Livestock Production Science 35: 213-236. Bell, MJ., and Roberts, DJ. (2007) The impact of uterine infection on a dairy cow’s performance. Theriogenology 68: 1074 – 1079. Bell, MJ., Wall, E., Russell, G., Roberts, DJ. and Simm, G. (2010) Risk factors for culling in Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. Veterinary Record 167: 238-240. Booth, CJ., Warnick, LD., Gröhn, YT., Maizon, DO., Guard, CL., and Janssen, D. (2004) Effect of lameness on culling in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 4115 – 4122. Brickell, JS. and Wathes, DC. (2011) A descriptive study of the survival of Holstein-Friesian heifers through to third calving on English Dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 1831 – 1838. Dobson, H., Walker, SL., Morris, MJ., Routly, JE., and Smith, RF. (2008) Why is it getting more difficult to successfully artificially inseminate dairy cows? Animal 2: 1104 –1111. Fetrow, J., Nordlund, KV. and Norman, HD. (2006) Invited Review: Culling: Nomenclature, Definitions, and Recommendations. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 1896 – 1905. Kennedy, JOS. (1986) General Purpose Dynamic Programming (GPDP) Files for download http://www.kennedyltu.net/research/ Accessed March 2011. Langford, FM., Vosough, Ahmadi B. and Stott, AW. (2011) Identi-fication and evaluation of the causes of involuntary culling in the British dairy herd. Dairy Co Report. Cirencester, Dairy Co. Machado, VS., Caixeta, LS., McArt, JAA. and Bicalho, RC. (2010) The effect of claw horn lesions and body condition score at dry-off on survivability, reproductive performance, and milk production in the subsequent lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 4071 – 4078. Orpin, PG., and Esslemont, RJ. (2010) Culling and wastage in Dairy Herds: An update on incidence and economic impact in dairy herds in the UK. Cattle Practice 18: 163 – 172. Stott, AW. (1994) The economic advantage of longevity in the dairy cow. Journal of Agricultural Economics 45: 113 – 122. Whitaker, DA., Kelly, JM. and Smith, S. (2000) Disposal and disease rates in 340 British dairy herds. Veterinary Record 146: 363 – 367. Yeates, JW. (2010) Death is a welfare issue. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23: 229 – 241.

30


Notes


Daniel M. Weary (B.Sc., M.Sc., D. Phil., Professor) and Marina A.G. von

Keyserlingk (B.Sc., M.Sc. Ph.D., Professor) are NSERC Industrial Research

Chair holders at The University of British Columbia and are recognized

internationally for their research on care and housing for dairy cows and

calves.

Dan is originally from the Province of Quebec, and did his B.Sc. and M.Sc.

degrees in Biology at McGill University before moving to the UK to do his

doctoral studies in animal behavior at Oxford University. Dan worked as a

research scientist for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada before moving to

UBC in 1997 to co-found the University’s Animal Welfare Program.

Marina’s love of animals began while growing up on a beef cattle ranch

in British Columbia. She completed her undergraduate in Agricultural

Sciences at UBC, her M.Sc. at the University of Alberta and Ph.D. in

Animal Sciences at the University of British Columbia. Marina worked as

a research scientist in the animal feed industry for 6 years before joining

UBC’s Animal Welfare Program in 2002.

Dan and Marina direct an active group working on research problems in

dairy cattle welfare and they are frequent speakers for professional audi-

ences on this topic. Dan and Marina have extensive publication records

and co-authored a book entitled “Welfare of cattle” (Springer, 2008).

Prof. Marina von Keyserlingk and Prof. Dan Weary

32


Introduction

Ensuring a reasonably constant level of milk

production requires that cows give birth once a

year. Despite the frequency of this occurrence,

the period around calving is one of the points in

dairy production where risks to animal welfare

are highest (von Keyserlingk et al. 2009). During

this period, cows face a number of stressors

including diet changes and social regrouping,

and the physical, hormonal and physiological

changes associated with calving and the onset

of lactation. Cows are also especially vulnerable

to metabolic and infectious diseases during the

transition period, making early detection of

disease particularly valuable at this time.

The majority of research on health issues in

transition dairy cows has focused on nutrition,

physiology and metabolism. Our work has

instead focused on the behavioural changes that

occur during the transition period and the rela-

tionships between behaviour, including feeding

behaviour and health status after calving. This

paper reviews nearly a decade of research by

our research group that describes behavioural

changes over the transition period and links

these behaviours with disease (specifically

metritis) after calving.

Parturition: Where and When

Although cows are naturally gregarious, it has

been reasonably well accepted the onset of

maternal behaviour in free ranging cattle begins

in the hours when cows isolate themselves from

herd mates and choose a nesting site before

calving (Lidfors et al. 1994). However, when

cows are kept at higher stocking densities

(3 cows/ha; Owens and Edey, 1984 / 85), or

housed indoors (Edwards, 1983), this tendency

to separate from herd mates is less evident.

Intensively housed dairy facilities are man-

Improving the welfare of the transition cowProf. Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk and Prof. Daniel M. Weary

Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, Canada


aged such that cows are now housed at higher

densities than that described in the previous

work and either moved to individual maternity

pens or left to calf in large groups where they

are provided much less space than found under

more natural conditions. Unfortunately there

is a dearth of experimental work investigating

whether these sort of calving environments

work well from the cow’s perspective. Our

research group has recently initiated a number

of studies on this topic; early results suggest that

intensively housed cows do prefer to separate

themselves from conspecifics at the time of

calving, and that preventing this behaviour may

increase the risk of disease.

Little research has also addressed when cows

calve. In one study we followed the calving

times of 100 Holstein dairy cows housed indoors

in a free stall barn and found that the majority

of cows tended to calve in the later part of the

afternoon and early evening (von Keyserlingk

and Weary 2007). This diurnal pattern may be

due to selective advantages of calving at differ-

ent times, or may simply relate to management

practices on the farm.

Changes in behaviour around the time of calving

In some of our first work in this area we investi-

gated the changes in feeding and lying behaviour

of cows monitored from 10 d before until 10 d

after calving (Huzzey et al. 2005). The daily time

spent feeding was variable during the period

before calving, but averaged 86.8 ± 2.95 min / d.

Immediately after calving feeding times dropped

to 61.7±2.95 min / d, perhaps because feeding

rate increased likely due to the switch to a higher

energy postpartum diet. In the days after calving

feeding times slowly increased (at a rate of 3.3

min / d), in agreement with other studies show-

ing a gradual increase in dry matter intake (DMI)

required to support increasing milk production

(Kertz et al. 1991).

Healthy cows stood on average for 12.3 and 13.4

h / d during the pre- and post-partum period,

which is not much different than during other

stages of lactation, but there was a dramatic

increase in the number of standing bouts from 2

days before calving to the day of calving (Huzzey

et al. 2005; Proudfoot et al. 2009). This result

suggests that cows were more restless, likely

due to the discomfort associated with calving,

and suggests that special attention should be

placed on cow comfort in the maternity pen.

Changes in Behaviour Predict Illness Around Calving

In a number of studies we have assessed

whether cows that became ill with metritis after

calving behaved differently than healthy cows

(Urton et al. 2005; Huzzey et al. 2007). In the lat-

ter study, we followed the DMI of 101 cows from

14 days before calving to 21 days after calving.

Cows that developed metritis or severe metritis

ate less than healthy cows in the pre-partum

period, up to 10 d before the disease was

diagnosed. Feeding time was also measured and

showed the same pattern. With every 10-minute

decline in feeding time in the pre-partum period,

the odds of cows becoming ill doubled. This

work provides evidence that reduced feeding

time and DMI during the period before calving

increases the risk of cows being diagnosed

with metritis after calving. However, whether

a reduction in intake and feeding time before

calving is a cause of metritis or an effect of

something else going on during the prepartum

34


period, is not known. Social behaviour in the

pre-partum period was measured, as this is

likely influenced by the many challenges during

transition. Cows that developed post-partum

metritis also engaged in fewer aggressive inter-

actions at the feed bunk during the week prior to

calving and avoided the feed bunk during peri-

ods when competition for feed is highest. Not

surprisingly, metritis reduces feed intake around

calving, lowers 305-day milk yield, and increases

culling risk in multiparous cows. (Wittrock et al.

2010; von Keyserlingk and Weary, 2010).

Ample evidence now suggests that detailed

knowledge of behaviour can help identify cows

at risk for disease in transition dairy cows. This

information can also guide the development of

management practices that can:

1) help detect disease early and 2) help prevent

disease by addressing management challenges

during transition that might influence these

risky behaviours (i.e., decrease feed intake and

increase standing time). However, we encour-

age readers to think critically as it is important

to think carefully about the causal links: does

the behaviour increase the risks of illness or

does illness cause changes in behaviour (see

reviews by Weary et al. 2009 and Proudfoot

et al. 2012)? In some cases these links can be

complex. Changes in behaviour might be due

to a general feeling of malaise, and the behav-

ioural changes may exacerbate the original

condition or increase the risk of the animal

succumbing to clinical illness. This area clearly

requires more scientific work.

Conclusion

Our work continues to focus on cow behaviour

around calving, how these behaviours are

affected by management and housing, and how

these behaviours can be used to better identify

health problems affecting transition cows. Many

questions remain. For example, current work is

studying if, when provided the opportunity, cows

will separate themselves from herd mates before

calving, and whether preventing this behaviour

increases the risk of disease? We strongly

encourage additional work on cow behaviour in

the period around calving. Our hope is that this

work will provide the basis for science-based

recommendations that improve the welfare and

health of transition dairy cows.

Acknowledgement

We thank the many graduate students of the

University of British Columbia’s Animal Welfare

Program whose passion and hard work has

resulted in the studies described above. The

Animal Welfare Program is supported, in part,

by Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering

Research Council Industrial Research Chair Pro-

gram (Ottawa, ON, Canada) with contributions

from the Dairy Farmers of Canada, Westgen,

Pfizer Animal Health, BC Cattle Industry Devel-

opment Fund, the BC Milk Producers, BC Dairy

Foundation, BC Dairy Industry Research and

Education Fund, Alberta Milk and many others

listed on the Animal Welfare web site at http://

www.landfood.ubc.ca/animalwelfare.


References

Huzzey, J.M., M.A.G. von Keyserlingk and D.M. Weary (2005) Changes in feeding, drinking, and standing behavior of dairy cows during the transition period. J. Dairy Sci. 88: 2454 – 2461. Huzzey, J.M., D.M. Veira, D. M. Weary, and M.A.G. von Keyser-lingk. 2007. Prepartum behavior and dry matter intake identify dairy cows at risk for metritis. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 3220-3233. Lidfors, L.M., Moran, D., Jung, J., Jensen, P., Castren, H. (1994) Behavior at calving and choice of calving place in cattle kept in different environments. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 42:11 – 28. Opsomer, G., Y.T. Gröhn, J. Hertl, M. Coryn, H. Deluyker and A. de Kruif (2000) Risk factors for post partum ovarian dysfunction in high producing dairy cows in Belgium: a field study. Therio. 53: 841 – 857. Owens, J.L., Edey, T.N., (1984 / 85) Parturient behaviour and calf survival in a herd selected for twinning. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 13: 321 – 333. Proudfoot, K.L., J.M. Huzzey, and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk. (2009) The effect of dystocia on the dry matter intake and behavior of Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 4937 – 4944. Proudfoot, K.L., D.M. Weary, and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk (2012) Invited Review: Linking the social environment to illness in farm animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. doi:10.1016 / j.applanim.2012.02.008

Urton, G., M.A.G. von Keyserlingk and D.M. Weary (2005) Feeding behaviour identifies dairy cows at risk for metritis. J. Dairy Sci. 88: 2843 – 2849.

von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. and D.M. Weary. 2007. INVITED REVIEW: Maternal behaviour in Cattle. Horm. & Behav. 52: 106 – 113.

von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., J. Rushen, A.M.B. de Passillé and D.M. Weary. 2009. INVITED REVIEW: The Welfare of Dairy Cattle – Key Concepts and the Role of Science. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 4101-4111.

von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. and D.M. Weary (2010) INVITED REVIEW: Feeding Behaviour of Dairy Cattle: Measures and Applications. Can. J. of Anim. Sci. 90: 303 – 309.

Weary, D.M., Huzzey, J.M., and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk (2009) Board Invited Review: Using behaviour to predict and identify ill health in animals. J. Anim. Sci. 87: 770 – 777.

Wittrock, J.M., K.L. Proudfoot, D.M. Weary, and M.A.G. von Key-serlingk (2011) Metritis affects long-term milk production and cull rate of Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 94: 2408 – 2412.

36


Notes


Dr. Kenneth Joubert

Kenneth graduated with a BVSc from The University of Pretoria in 1995.

After graduating he joined small animal practice in Johannesburg for

2 years before returning to the University of Pretoria. In 2000 he obtained

a MMedVet (Anaes) and held the position of senior lecturer in anaesthe-

siology at the university. In 2004 he left the university to re-join private

practice before starting his own referral practice in anaesthesiology,

pain management and critical care. Kenneth has publish 33 scientific

publications, delivered 53 scientific presentations, delivered over 120

continuing education talks, done 9 multimedia presentations, published

35 non-scientific articles, presented 3 course, written one book chapter

and attended 55 congress of continuing education. Kenneth currently

holds a extra-ordinary lecturing post in Pharmacology in the depart-

ment of Paraclinical Sciences at the University of Pretoria and runs a

private practice dedicated to anaesthesia, analgesia and critical care. He

has regularly examined students in pharmacology, anaesthesiology and

clinical studies.

Kenneth has a keen interest in total intravenous anaesthesia, intensive

care, ventilation and cardiology. His research interests included non-

steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, anaesthetic depth monitoring and

total intra-venous anaesthesia.

[email protected]

38


Practical methods to reduce pain associated with obstetrical procedures in cattleDr. Kenneth Joubert

Veterinary Anaesthesia, Analgesia & Critical Care Services, Lonehill, 2062, South Africa

Introduction Providing analgesia to cattle during the peri-

partum period is extremely complex as meat

and milk withdrawal times need to be consid-

ered, there are only a few medications regis-

tered for use in cattle, humane handling is be-

coming a requirement and the economic value

of these interventions is not fully understood.

Pain in the peri-partum period can either be

a result of the birthing process, complication

during partus (e.g. dystocia) or a result of inter-

ventions to relieve the dystocia (caesarian or

manipulation of the foetus). Effective analgesia

and relaxation of the uterus can be an invalu-

able aid when resolving a dystocia. No analge-

sics are usually given for normal partus.

Four broad categories of drugs are generally

available for the treatment of pain: non-steroi-

dal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, alpha2

agonists and local anaesthetics drugs. Local

anaesthetic agents are either used alone or

combined with alpha2 agonists or opioids when

used for regional anaesthesia.

Most procedures are conducted under sedation

with analgesia. General anaesthesia is not used

as a routine in peri-partum cattle.

Sedation

The use of alpha2 agonists in ruminants iscom-

monplace. Dramatic breed differences in the

sensitivity of animals to alpha2 agonists are

well known. Bos indicus breeds are particularly

sensitivity. Alpha2 agonists are very effective

sedative hypnotics and analgesic in cattle,

sheep and goats. Hypoxia has been documented

in ruminants following the administration of

alpha2 agonists. Cardiovascular changes include

a dramatic reduction in heart rate, an increase

in blood pressure (raise systemic vascular

resistance) and a reduction in cardiac output.

Alpha2 agonists should only be used in healthy

animals. Alpha2 agonists should be used with

caution in small ruminants, as hypoxia can

become life threatening. The pathophysiology

behind hypoxia in sheep has been shown to

be as a result of acute pulmonary oedema. The

pulmonary oedema is the result of an interaction

between the alpha2 agonists and the pulmonary

macrophage. Alternative sedatives should be

used in sheep and goats. Alpha2 agonists’ abol-

ishes the swallowing reflex and predisposes the

patient to the risk of aspiration.

All the alpha2 agonists may be used in cattle

Cattle appear to be less sensitive to detomidine

than xylazine and doses similar to that used


in horses are used in cattle. Detomidine was

detected in milk for 23 hours after administra-

tion and in muscle for 48 hours. Medetomidine

and romifidine has been used in cattle. Alpha2

agonists are very effective in reducing anaes-

thetic requirements.

In pregnant animals, alpha2 agonists should be

used with caution as they can increase uterine

tone. This can result in abortions. All the

alpha2 agonists can be reversed. Atipamezole

and yohimbine can be used to reverse all of

the alpha2 agonists. Reversal can improve the

safety of alpha2 agonists.

Acetylpromazine is not commonly used in

ruminants but may be very effective in sed-

entary animals. Acetylpromazine does reduce

anaesthetic requirements although clinical

sedation is not dramatic. Caution should be

exercised in sick, debilitated and hypovolaemic

animals.

Benzodiazepines are a useful alternative in

small ruminants to alpha2 agonists. Both

diazepam and midazolam have been used

successfully and are usually used in combina-

tion with ketamine for general anaesthesia.

The cardiovascular and respiratory effects are

usually not that marked. Benzodiazepines can

be reversed with flumazenil. The large volumes

required in cattle usually make the administra-

tion of benzodiazepines impractical.

Opioids can be combined with sedatives to

improve analgesia, deepen sedation and extend

the duration of effect. Butorphanol is a mixed

agonists antagonist opioid and buprenorphine

is partial agonist opioid. The major advantages

are a decreased effect on respiration and less

legal regulation. The improved analgesia and

sedation allows for more invasive procedures

to be performed with additional local analgesia

and without resorting to general anaesthesia.

Muscle relaxation is improved by the admin-

istration of opioids and anaesthetic induction

doses are reduced. These opioids, at similar

dose rates have been used to provide post-

operative analgesia.

Opioids can interfere with the LH peak and

affect ovulation. This needs to be considered

during invasive procedures performed at the

time of breeding.

All sedatives and analgesics cross the blood

brain barrier and the placenta. This can result

is depression of the new born. Reversal agents

can be administered through the umbilical vein

at delivery to reverse these effects. Alterna-

tively they can be administered if sedation is a

problem post delivery.

Agent Potency Lipid solubility pKa Prot binding Onset Duration (min)

Procaine 1 8.9 6 % Slow 60 – 90

Lidocaine 2 3.6 7.7 65 % Fast 90 – 200

Mepivacaine 2 2 7.6 75 % Fast 120 – 240

Bupivacaine 8 30 8.1 95 % Interm 180 – 600

Ropivacaine 8.1 95 % Interm 180 – 600

40


Local Anaesthesia

The term local anaesthesia refers to the use of a

chemical agent on sensory and motor neurons

to produce a temporary loss of pain sensation

and movement. Local anaesthetic blocks are

an effective and practical alternative to general

anaesthesia. Local anaesthetics work by pre-

venting neuronal transmission from a certain

area of the body. They may also stop nerve con-

duction into this area as well. This results in a

loss of sensory and motor function to the area

affected. Local anaesthesia may be induced

by the administration of drugs, coldness (ethyl

chloride, ice) and through transcutaneous

electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).

Different types of local anaesthetic blocks have

been described based on anatomical location.

Surface analgesia refers to the induction of

anaesthesia in the superficial layers of the

skin. Injection of local anaesthetics into a

joint produces intrasynovial analgesia while

infiltration of local anaesthetics into an area

produces infiltration analgesia. Regional nerve

blocks produce analgesia over a wider area

than that produced by any of the previously

described methods. Regional nerve blocks may

require the infiltration of local anaesthetics

into areas to remove sensation from the nerves

innervating that area. Large nerves or plexuses

supplying an area are targeted to remove

sensation. Intravenous regional anaesthesia

produces anaesthesia through the injection

of local anaesthetics into the venous drain-

age systems of an area after occlusion of the

vascular structure with a tourniquet. Spinal

anaesthesia refers to epidural and intrathecal

administration of local anaesthetic blocks.

Infiltration Anaesthesia

The infiltration of local anaesthetics is com-

monly performed in veterinary practice. It is

safe, reliable and does not require extensive

experience. Sterile sharp needles should be

used. If injections are made at the periphery

of each weal then only the one needle prick

is felt. The recommended dose of lignocaine

or mepivacaine for infiltration is 2 – 5 mg / kg.

Local anaesthetic should be diluted with 0.9%

sodium chloride and not sterile water. The dose

should be reduced in old, sick or debilitated

animals by 30 or 40 %. Adrenaline at a con-

centration of 1:200 000 may used to delay the

absorption of local anaesthetics and increase

the duration of effect. Adrenaline should not be

used where an end-arterial supply exists as skin

necrosis may result (ears, tails). When surgery

of deeper lying tissues is required it is impor-

tant to sequentially anaesthetise all the layers

from superficial to deep. Infiltration analgesia

is commonly used to close wounds, remove

small growths and take biopsies in small

animals. In large animals, infiltration analgesia

may be used to perform laparotomies. These

blocks are known as field blocks.


Regional Anaesthesia

Regional anaesthetic blocks will be discussed

individually. The principle underlying these

blocks is that nerve supply to a specific region

or area is blocked where the nerves are easily

accessible from the skin. The nerves may be

readily palatable through the skin, and follow a

fixed course next to easily identifiable anatomical

structures (usually bones) or be known to be

found at fixed positions. These blocks usually use

a large volume of local anaesthetic as the needle

is placed blindly and the large volume ensures

that the local anaesthetic defuses to the nerve

and induces the block. Sometimes these blocks

are referred to as nerve blocks.

Inverted “L” block

The nerves supplying the abdominal wall start

cranially at the spinal column and course ven-

trally and caudally to supply the abdominal wall.

The inverted L block allows for the infiltration

of local anaesthetic around this nerve supply to

allow for abdominal surgery. Both the subcutane-

ous area as well as the deeper muscle layer needs

to be infiltrated in order to provide adequate

analgesia.

The inverted “L” block is simple technique that

is easily applied. This technique is useful for

laparotomies and caesarean’s. It is important

to remember that deep muscle layers and

intra-abdominal sensation can still be present.

Additional local anaesthetics can be applied

during the surgery deeper muscle layers and

peritoneal structures.

Spinal anesthesia

Spinal anaesthesia is the injection of local

anaesthetic around the spinal cord. When local

anaesthetics such as lidocaine or bupivacaine

are used, all the segmental nerves (sensory and

motor) which pass through the anaesthetic are

paralyzed, although when opioids are used only

sensory block (analgesia) occurs. Spinal anaes-

thesia is divided into two types; ‘epidural’ and

‘true spinal’.

• Epidural (or extradural) anesthesia refers

to depositing of local anesthetics into the

extradural space. The needle enters the spinal

canal, but does not penetrate the meninges.

The anesthetic is therefore limited to the

canal outside the dura mater.

• True spinal anesthesia refers to the sub-

arachnoid access (usually known as ‘spinal’

anesthesia) in which the needle penetrates

the dura mater, and the analgesic is injected

into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

The requirements from these techniques is

paralysis of sensory nerves to the area in which

42


surgery is going to be performed. Muscle

relaxation can be an added bonus or a disad-

vantage. Muscle relaxation of the limbs causes

recumbency; and of the thoracic region limits

respiratory movement. If local analgesic reaches

the cervical region and affects the phrenic

nerves, then respiration ceases! Thus most spinal

and epidural anaesthesia is injected in the caudal

regions of the animal, although there are several

variations in terminology used, generally where

injection of drugs in the coccygeal region and the

dose of drug is such that the hind limbs are not

affected, it is termed “caudal anaesthesia” where

a higher dose of drug is given, still at the coccy-

geal area, so the hind limbs may be just affected,

the term “epidural anaesthesia” is used, and

where the block extends to the abdominal region,

either because of the volume used, or because

the injection is carried out at the lumbosacral

space, the term used is “anterior epidural”.

The autonomic effects of epidural anaesthesia

can be quite profound. Many of the spinal nerves

also carry fibers of the autonomic nervous sys-

tem, which will also be blocked. The sympathetic

fibers are responsible for vasomotor tone. Thus

spinal and epidural anesthesia always causes

hypotension; and if the block is sufficiently

anterior to block the splanchnic outflow, this

hypotension can be severe, even life threatening.

Having an IV fluid line is essential prior to per-

forming an epidural block to treat a potentially

dangerous hypotension.

The area blocked by epidural anesthesia will

depend on the site of injection.

• Common sites used in veterinary medicine

(depending on the species) are the sacro-

coccygeal or intercoxygeal space, and the

lumbosacral space.

• Quantity, volume of and specific local anes-

thetic injected.

• Size of the spinal canal. This varies not only

between species of the same weight, but

between breeds; with age; and with condi-

tion of the animal (e.g. fat / thin etc.).

• Position of animal (effects of gravity on

spread).

• Removal of the anaesthetic from the canal.

Again this depends on multiple factors,

including age (influences size of “holes”

in the dura around the nerves), condition,

blood flow etc. The use of vasoconstrictors

(epinephrine) will delay removal.

Thus epidural or spinal anaesthesia is not a very

precise technique, and it is difficult to estimate

the extent of the block which will occur, or its

duration.

Complications of spinal and epidural block

• Infection – Apply good antiseptic practices

(good clipping and scrubbing)

• Irritation causing spinal damage (most

likely with subarachnoid). Avoid drugs with

preservatives.

• Hind limb motor paralysis (problem in large

animals, acceptable in small).

• Hypotension - most likely with a high block.

Where this is being done fluid therapy or

inotropes should be available to maintain

blood pressure.

• Respiratory paralysis (only if massive over-

dose of local analgesic is used).l


Epidural Anaesthetic techniques

The “hanging drop” technique

This involves removing the stylet of the spinal

needle, filling the hub of the needle with saline

or anesthetic solution, and allowing one drop to

hang from the hub. As the needle is advanced

through the ligamentous structures, the drop

does not move. However, when the ligamentum

flavum is penetrated the negative pressure in the

epidural space will draw the drop of solution into

the needle, indicating proper placement in the

epidural space. A “pop” is often felt as the needle

passes through the ligament. If the “hanging

drop” technique fails, the “loss of resistance”

technique can be used.

The “loss of resistance” technique

This indicates proper placement of the injection

needle in the epidural space which is based on

the amount of resistance to the injection of air

or saline. When the epidural space is entered the

injection of air, saline, or anesthetic solution will

encounter minimal resistance. A separate syringe of

normal saline or air (the same size should be used

to ensure consistency) should be prepared. When

minimal resistance to the saline or air injection is

encountered, the saline syringe is replaced with a

syringe-containing anaesthetic, and the injection is

completed. To rule out the possibility of administer-

ing drugs into the venous sinus (presence of the

blood) or subarachnoid space (presence of CSF), it

is important to aspirate or allow a few seconds to

check for bleeding before the epidural injection.

Epidural anaesthesia in bovines In cattle, the spinal cord ends in the region of

the last lumbar vertebra, but the meningeal sac

goes to the 3rd / 4th sacral segments. For caudal

and epidural anesthesia the injection site used is

between coccygeal C1 and C2 (located by raising

tail in “pump handle” fashion, the first obvious

articulation behind the sacrum being C1 / C2).

For a 500 kg bovine; 5 – 10 ml 2 % lidocaine will

give caudal anaesthesia without causing hind

limb ataxia or paralysis. Onset of paralysis of

the tail should occur in 1 – 2 minutes. The block

will last 1 – 2 hours. Larger doses will produce

increasingly anterior effects.

If 100 to 150 mls of 2 % lidocaine is injected,

the block will be sufficiently anterior to allow

surgery of the hindlimbs, mammary tissue,

flanks and abdominal wall. The bovine will be

recumbent. Injection of local anaesthetics can

be carried out at the lumbosacral junction in

44


order to produce an anterior block with less

anaesthetic. Caudal anaesthesia is particularly

useful for dystocias to stop straining and to

provide analgesia for perineal structures. A high

caudal block is required to perform abdominal

surgery. Higher doses increase the risk that the

cow will become recumbent. These blocks can

also be useful in bulls for evaluation of testes

and the penis. Entire analgesia to the penis is

not provided with this block.

Paravertebral anaesthesia

Paravertebral anaesthesia refers to the peri-

neural injection of local anaesthesia about the

spinal nerves as they emerge from the vertebral

canal through the intervertebral foraminae.

The technique may theoretically be carried out

in any species, and at any level of the spinal

cord but in practice, its main use is to provide

anaesthesia of the lumbar region in ruminants.

It’s advantage is that it provides analgesia and

muscle relaxation of the whole area covered

by the segmental nerves blocked. Several

different methods of achieving paravertebral

anaesthesia have been described. All methods

approaching from the dorsal surface are equally

effective.

The method described whereby the needle is

inserted ventral to the transverse processes of

the spine has the disadvantage that the dorsal

branches of the segmental nerves are not

blocked, thus some skin sensitivity remains.

Paravertebral anaesthesia is easy to carry out,

and almost always effective, except in the very

large beef breeds where it may be very difficult

to locate the necessary landmarks.


Proximal paravertebral block (Farquharson, Hall, or Cambridge Technique)

Indicated for standing laparotomy surgery such

as C-section, rumenotomy, cecotomy, correc-

tion of gastrointestinal displacement, intestinal

obstruction and volvulus. The dorsal aspect of the

transverse processes of the last thoracic (T-13)

and first and second lumbar (L-1 and L-2) verte-

brae is the site for needle placement. The dorsal

and ventral nerve roots of the last thoracic (T-13)

and 1st and 2nd lumbar spinal nerves emerge

from the intervertebral foramina are desensitized.

10 – 20 ml of 2 % lidocaine is injected to each

site, onset occurs usually within 10 minutes of

injection. Analgesia of the skin, scoliosis toward

the desensitized side - due to paralysis of the

paralysis of the paravertebral muscles, increased

skin temperature due to vasodilation (paralysis of

cutaneous vasomotor nerves) indicates effective

block. Duration of analgesia lasts approximately

90 minutes.

Distal paravertebral block (Magda, Cakala, or Cornell technique)

Indicated for same as proximal paravertebral block

above. The dorsal and ventral rami of the spinal

nerves T13, L1 and L2 are desensitized at the distal

ends of L-1, L-2 and L-4. A 7.5-cm, 18-gauge nee-

dle is inserted ventral to the tips of the respective

transverse processes in cows where approximately

10-20 ml of a 2 % lidocaine solution are injected

in a fan-shaped infiltration pattern. The needle is

completely withdrawn and reinserted dorsal to the

transverse process, where the cutaneous branch

of the dorsal rami is injected with about 5 ml of

the analgesic. The procedure is repeated for the

second and fourth lumbar transverse processes.

10 – 20 ml 2 % lidocaine is used per site and onset

and duration similar to proximal technique.

Paravertebral block provides excellent

analgesia for laparotomies provided that the

anatomy is understood and the block is cor-

rectly applied. At least 15 – 20 minutes should

be allowed for the block to become effective.

Deeper muscle layers also effective blocked

and visceral analgesia can be provided depend-

ant on the nerve innervations.

NSAIDs

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)

are one of the most used analgesic agents in the

world in both human and veterinary medicine,

These agents work through suppression of

cyclo-oxygenase enzymes and prevent the

production of inflammatory cytokines which

result in pain, fever and inflammation. NSAIDs

do not suppresses primary pain (pin prick) but

do attenuate the secondary pain and peripheral

hypersensitivity. Two iso-enzymes of the cyclo-

oxygenase enzymes have been described namely

COX-1 and COX-2. The COX-1 isoenzyme is

considered to maintain normal physiological

function while COX-2 isoenzymes are induced

at time of inflammation or stress with in certain

organ systems. NSAIDs that are COX-1 sparing or

COX-2 specific are thought to produce less side

effect. While this is partly true, both COX-1 and

COX-2 enzymes are involved in inflammation

and normal physiological function making this

not as well delineated as we would like.

In terms of clinical efficacy, no conclusive

evidence has yet been produced to show that

one NSAID produces better clinical results than

another. Evidence does exist to show that one

NSAID can be better at suppressing inflamma-

tion or fever than another. These differences do

not translate into a clinical efficacy difference.

46


NSAIDs are excreted in the milk after admin-

istration to lactating animals. This results in

exposure of suckling animals to NSAIDs. Renal

development is dependant on cyclo-oxygenase

enzymes and inhibition of the enzymes can

result in renal dysfunction. Most ruminants are

born with almost fully functional kidneys and

this is unlikely to be a major issue. All NSAIDs

are hepatically metabolised and again liver

function develops over the first few weeks of life.

Ruminants are also born with functional livers

and this is not a major issue. Current guidelines

would suggest that a single dose of NSAIDs

administered to lactating animals is unlikely to

place undue risk to the suckling ruminant.

Cyclo-oxygenase enzymes play an important role

in ovulation, ovarian function and foetal implan-

tation. A trophoblastic protein is produced by the

embryo to prevent uterine production of pros-

taglandin F2α from inducing leuteolysis. NSAIDs

suppress the production of prostaglandin F2α

and may enhance conception rates as a result.

The current choice of NSAIDs available in

ruminants is limited by official label claims

and clinical data. Phenylbutazone is justifiably

banned in many countries and is no longer avail-

able for production animals. Available NSAIDs

include meloxicam, flunixin and ketoprofen.

Following natural, assisted or cesarean delivery,

at least two components of pain may be identi-

fied : postoperative (somatic) pain from the

wound itself and visceral pain arising from the

uterus. Although somatic pain may be relieved

by opioids, NSAIDs may be effective for relieving

visceral pain. NSAIDs provide little analgesia

for primary acute pain (e.g. surgical incision)

but do alleviate secondary pain, peripheral

hypersensitivity and alter central processing of

pain. Additional analgesia should be provided for

painful procedures and surgery.

The use of NSAIDs should not impact on the per-

formance of herd. In dairy cattle this would for

example be reproductive indices and milk yield.

Meloxicam did not interfere with reproductive

performance, body weight or calf vitality when

administered before breeding, after breeding,or

at the beginning of the second and third trimes-

ter. Flunixin and carprofen have been shown not

to influence conception rates.


References Caron, J.P., LeBlanc, P.H. (1989) Caudal epidural analgesia in cattle using xylazine. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 53: 486 – 489.

Craigmill, A.L., Rangel-Lugo, M., Damian, P., Riviere, J.E. (1997) Extralabel use of tranquilizers and general anesthetics. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 211: 3: 302 – 304.

Davis, J.L., Smith, G.W., Baynes, R.E., Tell, L.A., Webb, A.I., Riviere, J.E. (2009) Update on drugs prohibited from extralabel use in food animals. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 235: 5: 528 – 534.

Heinrich, A., Duffield, T.F., Lissemore, K.D., Squires, E.J., Millman, S.T. (2009) The impact of meloxicam on postsurgical stress associated with cautery dehorning. Journal of Diary Science 92: 540 – 547.

Hirsch, A.C., Philipp, H. (2009) Effects of meloxicam on reproduction parameters in dairy cattle. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 32: 6: 566 – 570.

Lay, DC, Friend, TH, Bowers, CL, Grissom, KK, Jenkins, OC 1992 A comparative physiological and behavioural study of freeze and hot-iron branding using dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 70: 1121 - 1125.

Mbiuki, S.M. (1982) Xylazine and ketamine anesthesia in cattle. Veterinary Medicine February: 251 – 253.

Riebold, T. (2001) Anesthetic management of Cattle In Steffey, EP (ed.) Recent Advances in Anesthetic Management of Large Domestic Animals, International Veterinary Information Service, 1 – 7.

Smith, G.W., Davis, J.L., Tell, L.A., Webb, A.I., Riviere, J.E. (2008) Extralabel use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in cattle. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 232: 5: 697 – 701.

Trim, C.M. (1981) Sedation and general anesthesia in ruminants. Bovine Practitioners 16: 137 – 144.

Trim, C.M. (1981) Sedation and general anesthesia in ruminants. California Veterinarian 4: 29 – 35.

Underwood, W.J. (2002) Pain and distress in agricultural animals. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221: 2: 208 – 211.

Valverde, A., Gunkel, C.I. (2005) Pain management in horses and farm animals. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care 15: 4: 295 – 307.

von Krueger, X., Heuwieser, W. (2010) Effect of flunixin meglu-mine and carprofen on pregnancy rates in dairy cattle. Journal of Diary Science 93: 5140 – 5146.

Zaugg, J.L., Nussbaum, M. (1990) Epidural injection of xylazine: anew option for surgical analgesia of the bovine abdomen and udder. Veterinary Medicine September: 1043 – 1046.

48


Notes


Alice Barrier graduated from Agrocampus-Ouest (France). She studied life

sciences, agricultural sciences, and undertook her MSc with a focus on

animal sciences, particularly dairy sciences. She has developed an interest

in animal welfare through her research experiences in Canada, France and

the United Kingdom where she has worked on welfare issues affecting

dairy cows and calves. She joined SAC in 2008 to undertake a PhD, during

which she studied how calving difficulty affects the production, health and

welfare of the dairy cow and the detrimental consequences it has on their

calves. As part of her PhD, she became interested in the problematic of pain

at parturition and studied potential behavioural indicators of pain around

calving. Alice is working as a postdoctoral researcher at SAC since October

2011. Alongside some teaching and student supervision activities, she

works on a project on welfare assessment protocols in dairy cattle and, in

partnership with Boehringer Ingelheim, on pain after a caesarean section.

Dr. Cathy Dwyer, BSc, PhD

Cathy was appointed Reader of Behavioural Development and Animal Wel-

fare at Scottish Agricultural College in Edinburgh in 2007, and has been em-

ployed as a researcher at SAC from 1994. She manages a number of research

projects concentrating on parturition, mother-offspring interactions and

behavioural development in sheep, cattle and mice, and welfare in exten-

sively managed species. She also teaches on the University of Edinburgh MSc

course in Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare, is currently supervising

4 PhD students and supervises MSc student dissertations.

Before moving north to Scotland, Cathy was awarded her PhD from the Royal

Veterinary College in London in 1992 for studies of prenatal nutrition and

maternal effects on foetal development in pigs. She worked as a postdoctoral

research assistant at the Royal Veterinary College and at Massey Univer-

sity, New Zealand, investigating foetal development in guinea pigs and

mice. Cathy has a degree in Physiology from the Univer-sity of Bristol, UK.

Alice Barrier

50


Pain and discomfort associated with caesarean section in cattle

Pain at parturition and following a caesarean section

Caesarean sections are a commonly performed

surgical procedure in cattle. Sections are carried

out in approximately 1 to 2 % of calvings (Pat-

terson et al., 1981; Barkema et al. 1992a) and

usually follow severe calving difficulty (dystocia),

when the calf can not be safely delivered vagi-

nally. Although caesarean sections are mostly

non-elective emergency surgeries, in some

breeds like the Belgian Blue, elective sections

have become the norm to deliver the calves due

to the discrepancy between the dam’s pelvic size

and the size of the offspring. Elective or not, such

surgical operations remain intrinsically risky for

both cows and calves, particularly when they are

performed in agricultural settings where lack of

asepsis can be an issue. Surgical complications

during or following a caesarean include cow

recumbency, haemorrhages, tears, adhesions,

peritonitis, and infections (Kolkman et al. 2009;

Newman 2008). Ultimately, such surgery can

affect the reproductive tract (e.g., metritis,

retained placenta), impaired fertility, lowered

milk production, premature cull and death of the

cow and or calf (Barkema et al. 1992b; Tenhagen

et al. 2007), with implications on the productivity

and welfare of the cow and her calf(-ves).

During labour, cows are likely to incur both

somatic and visceral pain (Brownridge, 1995;

Mainau and Manteca, 2011). Across various

countries, dystocia is recognised by veterinar-

ians as being a very painful condition (Huxley

and Whay, 2006; Laven et al. 2009; Kielland et

al., 2009; Fajt et al. 2011). Behavioural changes

observed in labouring cows when dystocia

occurs may indeed reflect higher levels of pain

than cows calving without difficulty (Barrier et

al. 2012a). Postpartum pain may also be present

in the reproductive tract as a result of pressure,

stretching and likely associated injuries (such

as tears, lacerations or hematomas) in the birth

canal (Scott, 2005; Barrier et al. 2012b). Yet, pain

resulting from giving birth has received little

attention in farm animals and is poorly under-

stood in cattle (Rushen et al. 2007; Mainau and

Manteca, 2011; Barrier et al. 2012a).

Alice Barrier & Dr. Cathy Dwyer

Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, UK


Following a caesarean section, cows would expe-

rience postsurgical pain as a result of cutting of

the skin, muscle and other tissues, causing acute

somatic pain at the site of injury, which is sharp,

stinging and highly localised. Visceral pain would

occur because of manipulations of the uterus and

other viscera, their distension, traction necessary

to extract the foetus from the cow’s abdominal

cavity. This follows inflammation of the tissues

and is reported as being more diffuse, dull and

poorly localised. As well, there may also be under-

lying postpartum pain in the reproductive tract

in patients that undergo emergency C-sections.

This could be due to failed attempts at a vaginal

delivery and additional pressure exerted when

trial manual extractions may have taken place.

Assessing pain and discomfort associated with C-section in cattle

There is a growing interest in the alleviation of

parturition pain in cattle associated with dys-

tocia and whether this can be achieved through

the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

(e.g., Duffield and Newby, 2010; Mainau Brunsó,

2011). However, this requires identification of

best indicators of pain at parturition in cattle.

Studies focusing on parturition prior to delivery

of the calf have identified a variety of behav-

iours as likely indicators of greater pain and

discomfort when calving difficulty occurs. These

include higher levels of rubbing, scrapping and

urine discharge (Wehrend et al. 2006), higher

level of tail raising, restlessness and time spent

lying completely flat (Barrier et al. 2012a); self-

grooming, kicking and head-turning (Mainau et

al. 2010); and increased number of postural tran-

sitions (Proudfoot et al. 2009). A comparison of

Belgian blue cows calving through the vaginal

route or whose calf was electively delivered

by a caesarean section (without provision of

postoperative analgesia) highlighted longer time

spent lying and increased postural transitions

after surgery (Kolkmann et al. 2010). Looking at

the postpartum period, primiparous dairy cows

that had received meloxicam (a Non Steroidal

Anti-Inflammatory Drug or NSAID) shortly

after calving were more active in the first week

than cows receiving a placebo, as assessed by

the number of steps taken (Mainau Brunsó,

2011). Altogether, it suggests that activity-

related behavioural changes may be suitable

behavioural indicators to investigate pain in the

periparturient animal.

Management of perioperative pain with the use of NSAIDs

In farm animals, although administration of

pain relief is provided during surgery including

caesareans sections (Huxley and Whay, 2006;

Hewson et al. 2007), there has typically been

fewer concern about mitigation of pain once the

surgical procedure is over (Chevalier et al., 2004;

Hewson et al. 2006; Walker et al. 2011). This is

despite the knowledge from human medicine

that inadequate treatment of post-operative

pain is associated with longer time needed for

recovery (Pyati and Gan, 2007). To date, there

are, however, no drugs licensed for use in cattle

52


to specifically alleviate pain experienced follow-

ing a caesarean section.

According to a recent survey across three Euro-

pean countries, only 13.8% of the veterinarians

establish post-surgical analgesia after bovine

caesarean section, mostly through the use of

NSAIDs (Hanzen et al. 2011). NSAIDs are suc-

cessfully used for pain relief after a caesarean

section in human obstetrics (Olofsson et al.

2000; Angle and Walsh, 2001). There should

also be adequate choices to provide for postop-

erative analgesia in cattle, by using flunixin or

ketoprofen (Newman, 2008), or meloxicam.

Administration of meloxicam, a NSAID of the

oxicam class could reduce inflammation and

pain associated with parturition and surgery. It

acts by inhibition of the cyclooxygenase, COX2,

involved in the synthesis pathways of prosta-

glandins responsible for pain and inflammation,

providing a long lasting anti-inflammatory and

analgesic effect (EMEA, 2012). In cattle, its half-

life of about 26h makes it a suitable candidate

for alleviating pain after a C-section. Indeed,

research has indicated that most of the pain

would occur during that time frame (Kolkmann

et al., 2010) and, in practice, it means it would

require a single administration of the drug at

surgery. In cattle, this NSAID has been found

effective in the treatment of calves with neo-

natal diarrhea complex (Todd et al. 2010) and in

decreasing post-surgical pain following dehorn-

ing (Heinrich et al. 2010). In other species, it is

licensed for alleviating visceral pain associated

with colic in horses and to provide for postop-

erative analgesia after abdominal surgeries in

cats, dogs and rats (e.g., Caulkett et al., 2003;

Gassel et al. 2005; Roughan and Flecknell, 2006).

It is therefore expected that through its anti-

inflammatory properties, a NSAID such as

meloxicam might be an adequate drug in reduc-

ing somatic and visceral pain that are likely to

arise after a non-elective caesarean section.

Theory in practice: in-field trial of the use of meloxicam to address pain and discomfort following a non-elective caesarean section in beef cattle

Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health is

investigating if pre-emptive administration of

meloxicam (a long-acting NSAID drug) at start of

surgery could mitigate postpartum pain and dis-

comfort associated with a caesarean section in

beef cows. Activity-related behavioural changes

have been identified as suitable candidates to

study postsurgical pain.

110 beef cows (55 primiparous, 55 multiparous)

that underwent non-elective standardised

caesarean section were recruited from 8 French

veterinary practices (investigators). Surgery

took place under local anaesthesia, achieved

with a line block of lidocaine hydrochloride.

Cows received pre-emptively either meloxicam

(Metacam® 20 mg / ml, 0.5 mg / kg bodyweight)

(n = 63) or a placebo (n = 47) according to a blind

randomised schedule. Pedometers (IceTag3D,

IceRobotics Ltd, South Queensferry, UK) were


attached to each cow’s hindleg and the cow’s

activity was monitored from 0 h (end of surgery)

to 68 h postpartum. Percent of time spent lying,

number of steps, MotionIndexTM and counts

of lying bouts were investigated in the first 68 h

postpartum.

It appeared that cows that had received

meloxicam lay down for longer and had more

bouts of lying in the first 24 h compared to

cows receiving a placebo. It is commonly

considered that such behavioural changes in

cattle are indicative of pain (e.g., Anderson and

Muir, 2005; Kolkman et al., 2010; Walker et al.

2011). In this study, this assumption is however

unlikely. The relationship between resting, pain

and discomfort at parturition needs to be better

understood.

This work has highlighted the particular

difficulties in assessing pain in parturient

animals. Parturition is intimately intertwined

with a variety of physiological, behavioural and

environmental challenges that each influences

the behaviour of the cow. Recovery, possible

motivation to rest after the experience of labour,

having to care for a newborn calf, metabolic

strain of lactation, possible adaptation to new

environments, are some of the examples that

make the context of the postpartum pain dis-

tinctive to other contexts where pain has been

the focus of studies.

As recently emphasised in reviews on pain at

parturition (Mainau and Manteca, 2011) and

surgical pain in farm animals (Walker et al.,

2011), this work highlights that such issues

ought to deserve more attention than they cur-

rently receive. Tackling the issue of parturient

pain (operative or not) in cattle requires the

development of validated pain measurements

applicable to the parturient animal.

References Anderson, D.E., Muir, W.W. (2005) Pain management in rumi-nants. Vet Clin North Am -Food Anim Pract 21, 19 – 31.

Angle, P., Walsh, V. (2001) Pain relief after cesarean section. Techniques in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management 5, 36 – 40.

Barkema, H.W., Schukken, Y.H., Guard, C.L., Brand, A., van der Weyden, G.C. (1992a) Cesarean section in dairy cattle: A study of risk factors. Theriogenology 37, 489 – 506.

Barkema, H.W., Schukken, Y.H., Guard, C.L., Brand, A., van der Weyden, G.C. (1992b) Fertility, production and culling following cesarean section in dairy cattle. Theriogenology 38, 589 – 599.

Barrier, A.C., Haskell, M.H., Macrae, A.I., Dwyer, C.M. (2012a) Parturition progress and behaviours in dairy cows with calving difficulty. Appl Anim Behav Sci 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.03.003.

Barrier, A.C., Ruelle, E., Haskell, M.J., Dwyer, C.M. (2012b) Effect of a difficult calving on the vigour of the calf, the onset of mater-nal behaviour, and some behavioural indicators of pain in the dam. Prev Vet Med 103, 248 – 256.

Brownridge, P. (1995) The nature and consequences of childbirth pain. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 59, 9 – 15.

Caulkett, N., Read, M., Fowler, D., Waldner, C. (2003) A com-parison of the analgesic effects of butorphanol with those of meloxicam after elective ovariohysterectomy in dogs. Can Vet J 44, 565 – 570.

Chevalier, H.M., Provost, P.J., Karas, A.Z. (2004) Effect of caudal epidural xylazine on intraoperative distress and post-operative pain in Holstein heifers. Vet Anaesth Analg 31, 1 – 10.Duffield, T.F., Newby, N.C. (2010) Assessing indicators of pain and discomfort in the peripartal cow following dystocic calving in dairy cattle. Proc. 3rd Boehringer Ingelheim Expert Forum on Farm Animal Well-Being, Barcelona, Spain.

EMEA (2012) Metacam: EPAR product information. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Prod-uct_Information/veterinary/000033/WC500065777.pdf. Accessed 26/03/2012

Fajt, V.R., Wagner, S.A., Norby, B. (2011) Analgesic drug admin-istration and attitudes about analgesia in cattle among bovine practitioners in the United States. J Am Vet Medic Assoc 238, 755 – 767.

Gassel, A.D., Tobias, K.M., Egger, C.M., Rohrbach, B.W. (2005) Comparison of oral and subcutaneous administration of buprenorphine and meloxicam for preemptive analgesia in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy. J AmVet Med Assoc 227, 1937 – 1944.

Hanzen, P.C., Théron, L., Detilleux, J. (2011) Modalités de réalisation de la césariene dans l’espèce bovine en Europe: l’intervention et ses conséquences. Bull GTV 62, 61 – 72.

Heinrich, A., Duffield, T.F., Lissemore, K.D., Millman, S.T. (2010) The effect of meloxicam on behavior and pain sensitivity of dairy calves following cautery dehorning with a local anesthetic. J Dairy Sci 93, 2450 – 2457.

54


Hewson, C.J., Dohoo, I.R., Lemke, K.A. (2006) Perioperative use of analgesics in dogs and cats by Canadian veterinarians in 2001. Can Vet J 47, 352 – 359.

Hewson, C.J., Dohoo, I.R., Lemke, K.A., Barkema, H.W. (2007) Canadian veterinarians’ use of analgesics in cattle, pigs, and horses in 2004 and 2005. Can Vet J 48, 155 – 164.

Huxley, J.N., Whay, H.R. (2006) Current attitudes of cattle practi-tioners to pain and the use of analgesics in cattle. Vet Rec 159, 662 – 668.

Kielland, C., Skjerve, E., Zanella, A.J. (2009) Attitudes of veterinary students to pain in cattle. Vet Rec 165, 254 – 258.

Kolkman, I., Opsomer, G., Lips, D., Lindenbergh, B., de Kruif, A., Vliegher, S.D. (2009) Pre-operative and operative difficulties during bovine caesarean section in Belgium and associated risk factors. Reprod Anim Sci, 45, 1 – 8.

Kolkman, I., Aerts, S., Vervaecke, H., Vicca, J., Vandelook, J., de Kruif, A., Opsomer, G., Lips, D. (2010) Assessment of Differences in Some Indicators of Pain in Double Muscled Belgian Blue Cows Following Naturally Calving vs Caesarean Section. Reprod Dom Anim 45, 160 – 167.

Laven, R.A., Huxley, J.N., Whay, H.R., Stafford, K.J. (2009) Results of a survey of attitudes of dairy veterinarians in New Zealand regarding painful procedures and conditions in cattle. NZ Vet J 57, 215 – 220.

Mainau, E., Ruiz-de-la-Torre, J.L., Manteca, X. (2010) Effect of time and parity on the behaviour of dairy cows during the puerperal period. Proc. of the 44th ISAE conference, Uppsala, Sweden, 46.

Mainau Brunsó, E. (2011) Pain caused by parturition in sows and dairy cattle. Effects of Meloxicam on welfare and production. PhD thesis. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona- Facultat de Veterinària.

Mainau, E., Manteca, X. (2011) Pain and discomfort caused by parturition in cows and sows. Appl Anim Behav Sci 135, 241-251.Newman, K.D., 2008. Bovine cesarean section in the field. Vet Clin North Am: Food Anim Pract. 24, 273 – 293.

Olofsson, C.I., Legeby, M.H., Nygårds, E.B., Őstman, K.M. (2000) Diclofenac in the treatment of pain after caesarean delivery: An opioid-saving strategy. Eur J Obst & Gynecol Reprod Biol 88, 143 – 146.

Patterson, D.J., Bellows, R.A., Burfening, P.J. (1981) Effects of Cae-sarean section, retained placenta and vaginal or uterine prolapse on subsequent fertility in beef cattle. J Anim Sci 53, 916 – 921.

Proudfoot, K.L., Huzzey, J.M., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. (2009) The effect of dystocia on the dry matter intake and behavior of Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 92, 4937 – 4944.

Pyati, S., Gan, T.J. (2007) Perioperative pain management. CNS Drugs 21, 185 – 211.

Roughan, J.V., Flecknell, P.A. (2006) Training in behaviour-based post-operative pain scoring in rats – An evaluation based on improved recognition of analgesic requirements. Appl Anim Behav Sci 96, 327 – 342.

Rushen, J., de Passillé, A.M.B., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M. (2007) Acute or Short-term Challenges to Animal Welfare. 3.5. Pain during calving. The Welfare of Cattle. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands., pp. 129 – 130.

Scott, P.R. (2005) The management and welfare of some common ovine obstetrical problems in the United Kingdom. Vet J 170, 33 – 40.

Tenhagen, B.A., Helmbold, A., Heuwieser, W. (2007) Effect of various degrees of dystocia in dairy cattle on calf viability, milk production, fertility and culling. J Vet Med Series A. 54, 98 – 102.

Todd, C.G., Millman, S.T., McKnight, D.R., Duffield, T.F., Leslie, K.E., (2010) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy for neonatal calf diarrhea complex: effects on calf performance. J Anim Sci 88, 2019 – 2028.

Walker, K.A., Duffield, T.F., Weary, D.M. (2011) Identifying and preventing pain during and after surgery in farm animals. Appl Anim Behav Sci 135, 259 – 265.

Wehrend, A., Hofmann, E., Failing, K., Bostedt, H. (2006) Behav-iour during the first stage of labour in cattle: Influence of parity and dystocia. Appl Anim Behav Sci100, 164 – 170.


Todd graduated from the Ontario Veterinary College (OVC), Univer-

sity of Guelph in 1990 (DVM) and worked for 4 years in a large dairy

practice in eastern Ontario, Canada. He returned to OVC in 1994 and

completed a Doctor of Veterinary Science (DVSc) degree in 1997. He

is currently a Professor in the Department of Population Medicine,

OVC, University of Guelph. Todd’s time is split approximately 50% for

teaching and 50 % for research. He teaches in all years of the under-

graduate veterinary program and works 1 to 2 days per week in the

OVC ruminant field service veterinary practice. He is actively involved

in dairy research, graduate supervision and teaching. He has authored

or co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed articles on several aspects of

dairy health management including transition cow metabolic disease,

use of monensin in dairy cattle, production limiting diseases (Johne’s

disease, Neospora abortion), and more recently strategies for mini-

mizing pain in cattle. He has spoken on many of these areas of dairy

health management in several countries including Italy, Spain, Mexico,

Argentina, Australia, and Japan. Todd was on sabbatic leave with Ian

Lean at Strategic Bovine Services in Camden, Australia in 2007 work-

ing on learning meta-analysis methods.

Prof. Todd F. [email protected]

56


Abstract

While it is very likely that there are many posi-

tive benefits of treating dairy cows postcalving

with NSAIDs (especially cows that experience a

dystocia), an important question is the timing

of administration postcalving. Based on current

thinking on alleviation of pain and inflammation,

treatment postcalving should be instituted as

soon as possible. There is, however, concerns

with retention of fetal membranes, although the

current literature on NSAID treatment postcalv-

ing and risk of retained placenta (RP) is mixed.

Introduction

Parturition is a necessary event for production

that happens every day on dairy farms across

the world. Parturition is an inflammatory

event marked biochemically by elevations in

acute phase proteins postcalving (Koets et al.

1998; Humblet et al. 2006). Schonfelder et al.

(2005) observed higher levels of haptoglobin

concentration in animals with dystocia after

uterine torsion compared to animals with natural

parturition after 5 days postpartum. A dystocia

is defined as a cow that requires assistance for

calf delivery (Mee, 2004). Dystocia rates for dairy

cows have been reported to be higher in NA

(> 10 %) compared with other parts of the world

(< 5 %) and regardless of country are much higher

in primiparous animals (Mee 2008). Changes

in dry matter intake in the periparturient cow

have been used as a tool to identify cows at risk

of postpartum complications (Drackley 1999;

Grummer et al. 2004). Proudfoot et al. (2009)

have shown that the dry matter intake for cows

that experienced dystocia was lower 24-48 hours

prior to calf delivery and 48 hours after calf deliv-

ery compared to cows that were not assisted.

Since feed intake and milk production are closely

related, a decrease in feed intake may correspond

to a decrease in milk production. Non-steroidal

anti-inflammatory drugs may play a therapeutic

role in alleviation of the impacts of this inflam-

mation and presumed pain associated with the

event of parturition.

Analgesia at Parturition

There is limited work published on the impact of

analgesia at calving in dairy cows. An older study

has shown that consumption of the amniotic

fluid by the cow provides some analgesic effect

(Machado et al. 1997) and this effect of amniotic

fluid has also been documented in rats (Kristal et

al. 1990). Under our current management condi-

tions, it is better for calf health if the calves are

Use of NSAIDs around calvingProf. Todd F. Duffield

Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada


removed from their dams immediately after birth.

As a result of these recommendations, many

dairy cattle may not get the benefit of ingestion

of amniotic fluid. Also, most dystocias result in

rupture and dispelling of most of the amniotic

fluid prior to the delivery of the calf. In addition,

up to 10 % of dairy calves may be stillborn and,

the amniotic fluid from these dystocias may not

provide the same degree of analgesia as a normal

calving.

NSAID Use at Parturition

Flunixin meglumine

Two studies in periparturient dairy cows have

been conducted with treatment of dairy cows

at calving with flunixin meglumine. In one

study, flunixin meglumine was administered at

a dose of 2.2 mg / kg intravenous daily for the

first three days of lactation beginning at partu-

rition (Shwartz et al. 2009). Flunixin meglumine

increased rectal temperature for the first seven

days of lactation, decreased DMI by over 2.0 kg

per day and had no impact on milk yield for the

first 35 days in milk (Shwartz et al. 2009). In

another study, flunixin meglumine was admin-

istered intravenously at a fixed volume of 22

or 25 mL (50 mg / mL, providing the label dose

range of 1.1 to 2.2 mg / kg BW) within 1 hour

and again 24 hours after calving (Duffield et al.

2009). This study was conducted in 1174 cows

on one large farm in Michigan and in 148 cows

at a research dairy facility near Guelph. Results

showed a significant increase in both the risk

of retained placenta (OR = 2.5, P < 0.001) and

the risk of metritis (OR = 1.5, P < 0.001) (Duf-

field et al. 2009). There was no difference in

milk production, serum metabolic parameters

or acute phase proteins between treatment

groups in this study. The results of this study

appear consistent with that of Waelchi et al.

1999, who reported a 3 times increased risk

of RP in cows treated with flunixin meglumine

compared to saline control at the time of cae-

sarean section. The most likely explanation for

these findings would be a tocoyltic effect for

flunixin meglumine interfering with myometrial

contractions and responsiveness to oxytocin

through anti-prostaglandin actions (Thun et al.

1993). As a result, flunixin meglumine cannot

be recommended for pain alleviation in cows

on the day of calving.

Ketoprofen

One large study exists in the peer-reviewed lit-

erature on ketoprofen at calving. In this study,

220 cows and heifers were given ketoprofen at

3 mg / kg BW immediately after calving and

24 hours later (Richards et al. 2009). A total of

227 animals served as untreated controls. Ani-

mals treated with ketoprofen were 1.7 times less

likely to incur an RP compared to the untreated

cows. There was no impact on other measures

of uterine or reproductive health and no effect

of ketoprofen treatment on milk yield.

58


Meloxicam

At least three studies involving meloxicam and

cows at parturition have been conducted but not

have yet been published in the peer reviewed

literature.

In the first study (Manteca et al. 2010) a total

of 30 heifers and 30 cows were enrolled on a

commercial dairy farm in Spain. Treatment

(meloxicam at 0.5 mg / kg BW SQ or equivalent

placebo) assignment was randomized and

administered within 12 hours of calving in

animals that were either unassisted or had an

easy manual assisted delivery. No effect of treat-

ment was identified for milk yield. The activity of

heifers given meloxicam was greater than that of

placebo animals in the days after calving.

The second study was conducted in 100 assisted

calvings at the dairy research facilities near

Guelph, ON, Canada. Treatment assignment

was randomly assigned within parity (1 and > 1)

so that animals received either meloxicam at

0.5 mg / kg BW SQ or equivalent volume placebo

SQ. Treatment was administered after the first

24 hours following calving. Preliminary results

from this study indicate no difference between

treatments on DMI, milk production, or meta-

bolic health. However, meloxicam treated cows

had both more frequent visits to the feedbunk

and a longer duration of feedbunk visits (Nathalie

Newby, personal communications).

The third study involved enrolling cows and first

parity heifers on the day of calving with either

meloxicam at 0.5 mg / kg BW SQ or be assigned

as an untreated control animal at a large com-

mercial dairy farm near London, ON, Canada.

This study Involved 462 cows (235 receiving

meloxicam, 227 untreated controls). There was

no effect of treatment on milk production and

no impact of treatment on the risk of retained

placenta (OR = 0.87, P = 0.67).

A fourth study involves investigation of the

potential benefits to treating newborn calves

with meloxicam. A total of 842 calves were ran-

domly assigned to either meloxicam (0.5 mg / kg

BW SQ) or equivalent placebo volume at birth.

Preliminary data analysis indicates improved

health scores over the first six weeks of life in

calves receiving meloxicam (Christine Murray,

personal communications).

Summary

Based on the studies reported above, it can be

concluded that short-term treatment of cows at

calving with NSAIDs is unlikely to have any impact

on milk yield. Given the strong homeorhetic drive

for dairy cows to produce milk, this is perhaps

not surprising. There may be some behavioural

benefits to NSAID treatment around calving, as

indicated through changes in feeding behaviour

and activity in two studies with meloxicam.

There is a very real risk of increased incidence of

retained placenta in animals treated with flunixin

meglumine on the day of calving. This risk does

not appear to be present for either meloxicam or

ketoprofen. There may be benefit for treating some

calves following birth with NSAIDs.


References

Drackley, J.K. Biology of Dairy Cows During the Transition Period: the Final Frontier J Dairy Sci 1999 82: 2259 – 2273.

Duffield, T. F., Putnam-Dingwell, H., Weary, D., Skidmore, A., Neuder, L., Raphael, W., Millman, S., Newby, N., Leslie, K. E. Effect of flunixin meglumine treatment following parturition on cow health and milk production. American Dairy Science Associa-tion Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada. J. Dairy Sci. Vol. 92, (E-Suppl.1), 118, 2009. Grummer, R.R., Mashek, D.G., Hayirli, A. 2004. Dry matter intake and energy balance in the transition period. Vet. Clin. NA Food Anim. 20:447 – 470. Humblet, M.-F., Guyot, H., Boudry, B., Mbayahi, F., Hanzen, C., Rollin, F., Godeau, J.-M. (2006) Relationship between hapto-globin, serum amyloid A, and clinical status in a survey of dairy herds during a 6-month period. Vet. Clin. Path. 35: 188 – 193. Koets, A.P., De Schwartz, N., Tooten, P. (1998) Release of proin-flammatory cytokines related to luteolysis and the periparturient acute phase response in prostaglandin-induced parturition in cows. Theriogenology. 49:797 – 812.

Manteca, X., Mainau, E., Cuevas, A., Ruiz de la Torre, J.L., The effect of parity and time on pain and discomfort associated with normal calving in dairy cows. 3rd Boehringer Ingelheim Expert Forum on Farm Animal Well Being, 37 – 39, Barcelona, Spain (2010). Machado F., L.C.P., Hurnik, J.F. and King, G.J. (1997) Timing of the attraction towards the placenta and amniotic fluid by the parturi-ent cow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 53:183 – 192.

Mee, J.F. (2004) Managing the dairy cow at calving time. Vet. Clin. Food Anim. 20:521 – 546. Mee, J.F. (2008) Prevalence and risk factors for dystocia in dairy cattle. Vet. J. 176:93 – 101.Proudfoot, K.L., Huzzey, J.M., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. (2009) The effect of dystocia on the dry matter intake and behaviour of Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92:493760 – 4944. Richards, B.D., D.H. Black, R.M. Christley, M.D. Royal, R.F. Smith, H. Dobson (2009) Effects of the administration of ketoprofen at parturition on the milk yield and fertility of Holstein-Friesian cattle. Vet. Rec. 165: 102 – 106. Schonfelder, A., Schrodl, W., Kruger, M., Ricjter, A., Sobiraj, A. (2005) The change in acute phase protein haptoglobin in cattle during spontaneous labor and Caesarean section with or without torsio uteri intrapartum. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 118:240 – 246. Shwartz, G., Hill, K.L., VanBaale, M.J., and Baumgard, L.H. (2009) Effects of flunixin meglumine on pyrexia and bioenergetic vari-ables in postparturient dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1963 – 1970. Thun, R., Kundig, H., Zerobin, K.,K., Kindahl, K., Gustafsson, B.K., Ziegler, W. (1993) Uterine motility of cattle during late pregnancy, labor and puerperium. III. Use of flunixin meglumine and endo-crine changes. Schwetz Arch Tierhelkd. 135:333 – 334. Waelchi, R.O., Thun, R., Stocker, H. (1999) Effect of flunixin meg-lumine on placental expulsion in dairy cattle after a caesarean. Vet. Rec. 144: 702 – 703.

60


abcd

Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health GmbH Binger Straße 173 55216 Ingelheim am Rhein/Germany [email protected] www.boehringer-ingelheim.com

Contact Dr. Laurent Goby Corporate Marketing Phone + 49(0)61 32 77 - 9 04 96 Fax + 49(0)61 32 77 - 89 48 Mail [email protected]

Issued by Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health GmbH

© Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health GmbH, 2012

All rights reserved.

A N I M A LH E A L T H

th boehringer ingelheim expert forum on farm animal well-being · 2020. 5. 18. · prof. marina von...

Documents